Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Invariantist semantics holds that 'knows' expresses a single, context-independent relation between an agent, proposition, and evidential standard.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
High-stakes contexts genuinely shift whether we attribute knowledge (bank case), not merely our reporting standards.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Quantifiers, modals, and adjectives show context-sensitivity is pervasive in natural language, so 'knows' likely does too.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
A single evidential standard cannot explain why experts and lay speakers attribute knowledge differently for identical cases.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Knowledge attributions succeed across contexts without speakers adjusting meaning, suggesting 'knows' has stable semantic content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Context-independent semantics avoids the problem of infinite regress when explaining what 'context' itself means or determines.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
If 'knows' varied with context, disagreements about knowledge would be merely verbal rather than substantive disagreements.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.