List

Jonathan Schaffer presented a paper (just a few hours ago) on a view he favors called contrastivism.

Contrastivism is the view that knowledge ascriptions express a ternary relation – S knows that P rather than Q.

The more traditional view is that knowledge ascriptions express a binary relation between a person and a proposition.

According the Contrastivist an utterance like “I know that is a canary” really expresses some proposition like “I know that’s a canary rather than a raven

What that contrastive proposition is will vary according to the context. Jonathan Schaffer presented an argument for contrastivism today. Here’s a quick and dirty presentation of the argument. This will be overly simplified.

An Argument for Contrastivism (quick and dirty version)

  1. Whether or not it is permissible to assert P depends on the context, and the permissibility will depend on some relevant contrastive proposition that the assertion is ruling out.
  2. Knowledge is a norm of assertion.
  3. If (1) and (2), then contrastivism is true.
  4. Therefore, contrastivism is true.

This doesn’t quite do justice to the more complicated way of fleshing out the argument, but it captures the basic spirit of his argument (in an overly simplified way). I don’t expect these premises to make any sense to someone not familiar with the knowledge is the norm of assertion literature (or this business about contrastive propositions), but I wanted to get this argument down somewhere. I thought this would be a good place to get it down.

I may come back to this and discuss his motivations for these premises, but I won’t go into that now. I’m off to dinner. Philosophy conferences are awesome.

One Response to “An Argument for Contrastivism”

  1. Jeremy

    While I’m obviously not familiar with the concept, one interesting consequence seems worthwhile to note.

    If 1 and 2 are true, then the contrastive proposition would also have to be known. But if this is the case, then it, too, would require a contrasting proposition. Then there are two possibilities. Either the contrasting proposition for the contrasting proposition is the original proposition (in which case the knowledge seems to be cyclically dependent), or it must be based on another contrastive proposition (in which case the basis for which we are permitted to make assertions is infinitely regressive and knowledge finds no basis as assertions have not).

    Personally I don’t have issue with either consequence–but it seems to me that many may. I’m sure I’m assuming something that you’ll flesh out later as reasoning for these premises.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  Posts

April 3rd, 2014

Ethics and Technology Panel This Week

I’m participated in a panel yesterday Fredonia on Ethics and Technology. The title of my presentation was “Grounding a Moral […]

March 27th, 2014

Gunshot victims to be suspended between life and death

This is unreal. Doctors in Pittsburgh will try to save the lives of 10 patients by placing them in a […]

March 26th, 2014

Diversity and Inclusiveness: Amy Ferrer over at newAPPS

The executive director of the American Philosophical Association is doing a series of guest posts this week over at newAPPS […]

March 20th, 2014

Thinking about moral realism may lead to better moral behavior.

This is really interesting. A recent article published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology suggests that being primed to think about […]

March 14th, 2014

APA Now Accepting Nominees for Leadership Positions

The APA now has an online nomination system. There are vacancies on all twenty APA committees. You can access the […]

February 27th, 2014

A Discovery Based Account of Intellectual Property Rights

One of the issues, that’s most interested me so far in the Ethics and Technology class I’m teaching is how […]

February 26th, 2014

How the MPAA inadvertently gave American Artists Leverage Against Hollywood

This is a very interesting read. For the most part it is an over-view of the global subsidy war between nations. Here’s […]

February 25th, 2014

Spritz – New Technology Aims to Boost Reading Speed to 500 words a minute

I just learned about Spritz today. It’s starts out to be pretty mind-blowing. The technology is designed to feed text […]

February 6th, 2014

Gettier Case in The Simpsons

If we assume that Bart (at some point) justifiably believed that the lemon-shaped rock was a lemon, then he had […]

February 4th, 2014

The Case of the Copyright Hoarder

I’m teaching an Ethics and Technology class this semester. I came up with a thought experiment today that I’m going […]