What is epistemic contextualism?

What is epistemic contextualism?

In epistemology, contextualism is the view that the truth-conditions of knowledge claims vary with the contexts in which those claims are made.

What is epistemic interpretation?

The core idea behind an epistemic interpretation of probability (such as Bayesianism) is that we can represent our confidence of belief in some proposition or event as probabilities. Typically, this is done by examining an agent’s dispositions to place varying bets her beliefs.

What is epistemic concern?

Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Epistemologists concern themselves with a number of tasks, which we might sort into two categories. This is a matter of understanding what knowledge is, and how to distinguish between cases in which someone knows something and cases in which someone does not know something.

What is an epistemic standard?

The notion of epistemic standards has gained prominence in the literature on the semantics of knowledge ascriptions. In standard semantics an expression is said to be context sensitive if and only if it expresses different contents (or intensions) relative to different contexts of utterance.

What is contextualism anthropology?

In one sense, contextualism refers to a humanistic theory that explains the kinds of beings that we are. This theory holds that human nature is specified and made intelligible only by the particular context (i.e., symbolic systems) in which it is found.

Is knowledge equal to truth?

Knowledge refers to the understanding, awareness or familiarity of entities such as facts, information, and skills which are acquired through learning, education, training or experience. Truth is the state or quality of being true, which is in accordance with facts or reality.

What is epistemic anxiety?

9) proposes that “epistemic anxiety”, is “a generic expression for the heightened need for greater evidence and more thorough processing that is characteristic of high-stakes situations”.

What is moral contextualism?

Moral contextualism is a form of speaker. relativism: it holds that the content of a. moral judgment is relative to the speaker’s. conversational context.

What does literalist mean in religion?

It can equate to the dictionary definition of literalism: “adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense”, where literal means “in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical”.

What is the meaning of literalists?

Definition of literalism 1 : adherence to the explicit substance of an idea or expression biblical literalism. 2 : fidelity to observable fact : realism.

What is epistemic contextualism in psychology?

Epistemic Contextualism. Epistemic contextualism (EC) is a recent and hotly debated position. EC is roughly the view that what is expressed by a knowledge attribution — a claim to the effect that S ‘knows’ that p — depends partly on something in the context of ‘the attributor’, and hence the view is often called ‘attributor contextualism’.

Does contextualism reject (1) in high standards contexts?

Moreover, in rejecting (1) in high-standards contexts, contextualism gives the skeptic his due, and takes seriously the compelling nature of skeptical arguments. Nevertheless, contextualists maintain that in most contexts, the epistemic standards are comparatively low.

What is contextualism and why does it matter?

In short, contextualism promises to deliver up a nice symmetry between the flexibility in our (alleged) judgments as to the truth of a given knowledge claim/denial, on the one hand, and a parallel plasticity in the truth conditions (and hence the truth values) of the knowledge-attributing sentences we are in fact prepared to utter.

Is pluralism possible in epistemic standards?

One such strand was the entertaining of the possibility of pluralism concerning epistemic standards. In one instance, this took the form of the claim, in response to skepticism, that there are two senses of ‘know’—one strong or philosophical, the other weak or ordinary (see, e.g., Malcolm 1952).