Jump to content

MSC

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by MSC

  1. Quote

    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’. Because what such an utterance expresses is context-dependent, so too is whether the knowledge attribution is true. The typical EC view identifies the pivotal contextual features as the attributor’s practical stake in the truth of p, or the prominence in the attributor’s situation of skeptical doubts about knowledge. The typical EC view has it that as the stakes rise or the skeptical doubts become more serious, the contextual standard gets more demanding. It requires S to be in a better position if the attributor's claim, ‘S knows that p’, is to express a truth. In contrast, ‘invariantists’ about knowledge hold that such factors in the attributor’s context do not affect the standards that must be met by a true ‘knowledge’ attribution.

    In addition to marking an important departure from traditional epistemological assumptions, EC is claimed to provide a novel resolution to certain puzzles about knowledge—not least, skeptical ones—as well as to best comport with our everyday knowledge-attributing practices. What follows describes the leading forms of EC, so understood, as well as the principal arguments for and major objections to EC. Along the way, EC is situated with respect to certain other views, both kindred and competing

    - SEP

    What are the arguments against Epistemic Contextualism?

    What are the arguments for Epistemic Contextualism? 

    If you wish to learn more before answering, please visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy. 

    For more information; Dretske, Cohen, Feldman and Wittgenstein are all extremely important figures to this new idea. Being familiar with Philosophical investigations by L. Wittgenstein is probably essential to really understanding the context that gave birth to this type of thinking about epistemology. 

    If you aren't much of a reader, Director Derek Jarmons, Jubilee and Wittgenstein will also help reach a more,  Artistically impressionistic feeling of what this form of epistemic thought entails. 

     

    Personal note: Really happy to be in this forum. I have seen a lot of really interesting and critical discussions taking place, in so many fields, that I am stuck for choice of where to begin to engage with you all.

  2. Let me put it another way; riddles are also a type of contest. 

    If riddles are a type of contest, who are you competing against right now? Me? Or are competitions and contests not the same thing?

    What if I told you that in this riddle, two persons are playing. One lost, one won. 

     

    So, who won?

     

    This riddle has in no way been answered yet. 

  3. 9 minutes ago, OldChemE said:

    Not much of a paradox.  The definitions of Won and Lost imply a contest, which implies two or more contestants.  Your example was not a contest.  Therefore the words do not apply.  M(ore) S(illy)C(oncepts}?

    A fair answer. It's probably maybe wrong but it's a fair answer.

     

    So your answer; is that nobody could have won or lost based on your claim that all contests need two contestants? Is that a fair break down of your answer? 

    Are black and white not the contestants?

  4. You sit down at the chess table, you lay your pieces on the board, you start by setting up the black pieces. Then, you switch seats and set up the white. For some reason, you've always felt it was unfair that white always gets to move first. How can that be a rule? Why is it a rule? Nevermind. The games about to start. White moves first. It's a French open. Nothing too serious. It's always better to play black defensively anyway. You watch and react to the flow of the game until finally, on the 27th move, checkmate. You look over at your opponent, no one there. You look down at the board, white won. Black king wasn't able to get out of the castle before it was too late.

    Who won the game? Who was black and who was white? Who lost?

     

    Hint: This is epistemically unsolvable.

     

    I created this problem awhile ago so I figured it would be good to share on here by way of Introducing myself.

    I am MSC. I am a Philosopher. I am also a Polymath. I'll be posting some contemporary work (Not mine) in the philosophy section very soon. I've already searched for the terms I will be discussing and have found that they have not been discussed here before. I really can't wait to start some of these discussions with you all and am very much looking forward to some Critical Conversations with anyone whom wishes to take part.

    No, I will not tell you what MSC stands for. That too will be a puzzle to potentially be solved by someone on this forum after the clues have been laid out. This puzzle is the first of those clues.

    Enjoy everyone!

    Additional: I made this puzzle, but I do not know what the true answer to it is. I have my answer, but people won't like it. Too bad. That is the closest we can get for now.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.