How Contextualism Can Be Used to Disregard Skepticism

Contextualism today, is defined as the truth of a particular knowledge ascription dependent on the context in which that truth is uttered. Over the past century and decades there have been many great debates between philosopher’s over contextualism and how it can be used to disregard Skepticism. I agree with Cohen’s defense of Contextualism in regard’s to both how he answers Skepticism and Conee’s objections.

Cohen starts off his defense of Contextualism by first explaining the skeptical paradox. The skeptical paradox here is the paradox that Cohen sees between Skepticism and Contextualism Cohen argues that he does see conflict in the paradox, as all the terms can be true dependent on the context in which it is used. The skeptical paradox is as follows: - (1) I know that P, (2) I don’t know that Not-H, (3) I know that P only if I know that Not-H. To start with, Cohen sees two definitive things in this argument. (A) That (1,2 and 3) all seem to be true and (B) that they appear in conflict that the same time. In this argument P is known to be any common sense claim that an individual would normally make abut the world for e.g. that I have two feet and that Franklin & Marshall is in Lancaster. H would be a skeptical claim/hypothesis. Examples of these are I am a bodiless brain in a vat and that there is mule painted just like a Zebra in the Lancaster Zoo. Furthermore, Cohen divides these claims into sections depending on the kinds of individuals making this statement. Cohen divided this into two areas. The first area is where there is a low standard for knowledge this is meant for individuals who accept knowledge on a day-to day basis about various things without questioning it i.e. where the standard for accepting claims/fa...

... middle of paper ...

...ssence we may identify that Cohen’s defense of contextualism, answers most claims that Conee believes to not exist within contextualism. Cohen provides substantial evidence to probe Conee’s claims as to why contextualism does enough to appeal skepticism within our day-to-day existence without us having to question our everyday knowledge ascriptions. Although yes, there maybe a shift in standards of knowledge but Cohen’s description of how our intuitions play a role in our everyday claims gives precedence to understand the fundamentals through which contextualism works with regards to Cohen’s description of contextually-shifting truth conditions to counter the appeal of skepticism. This I believe helps us understand the importance of contextualism in our world today as a means to understand and rationalize knowledge at every standard of knowledge that Conee sets.