Skip Navigation



Analysis Advance Access published online on September 24, 2009
Analysis, doi:10.1093/analys/anp125
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Baumann, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Analysis Trust. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Factivity and contextualism

Peter Baumann

Swarthmore College Swarthmore, PA 19081, USA pbauman1@swarthmore.edu

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

I recently argued (Baumann 2008) that there is a factivity problem for epistemic contextualism, which suggests that contextualism is inconsistent (cf. also Brendel (2005) and Wright (2005)). A similar problem arises for subject-sensitive invariantism (SSI) (cf. Hawthorne 2004; Stanley 2005) posing a similar threat of inconsistency (cf. Brueckner 2005: 317; Hawthorne 2004: 159–60; Wright 2005: 243–44). Recently, Anthony Brueckner and Christopher T. Buford have argued (2009) that in both cases the problem is only apparent. In this article, I defend the view that they are wrong about this, and that there is, indeed, a serious problem for contextualism. I will start with a presentation of the initial problem for contextualism and then discuss Brueckner's and Buford's reply. I will neither go into what I take to be the way out of the problem for contextualism (cf. Baumann 2008: §§4–5) . . . [Full Text of this Article]


   1. The problem
 

   2. The apparent dissolution of the problem
 

   3. Why the problem remains
 

   4. Some further problems with Brueckner's and Buford's view
 

   5. Conclusion
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?