If eavesdropper intuitions—the primary evidence for cross-context truth-value shifts—are explicable within a sophisticated contextualism, the puzzle loses its force as an argument against contextualism.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Cross-context truth-value shifts(as used in philosophy of language): The idea that a single sentence could be true in one situation but false in another situation (like how 'it's raining' is true in London but false in Los Angeles at the same moment).
Eavesdropper intuitions(as used in philosophy of language): Thought experiments where we imagine overhearing a conversation and ask whether what someone said is true or false—philosophers use these to test theories about how meaning works.
Explicable within(as used in philosophy of language): Able to be explained or accounted for by a particular theory or framework.
Primary evidence(as used in epistemology and argumentation): The strongest or most direct proof that supports a particular claim or theory.
The puzzle loses its force as an argument

Based on where you are in your exploration