Relativism, Vagueness and What is Said

García‐Carpintero, Manuel

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234950.003.0006

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The last use of predicates of taste that contextualists (e.g., García-Carpintero 2008;Sundell 2011;Plunket andSundell 2013, 2014) have focused on in connection with disagreement that I investigate is their 'metalinguistic' use. This use is illustrated by the following example found in Barker (2002), which served as a model for most contextualists taking up the issue:…”

Section: Metalinguistic Usesmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Many Uses of Predicates of Taste and the Challenge from Disagreement

Zeman

2016

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the debate between contextualism and relativism about predicates of taste, the challenge from disagreement (the objection that contextualism cannot account for disagreement in ordinary exchanges involving such predicates) has played a central role. This paper investigates one way of answering the challenge consisting on appeal to certain, less focused on, uses of predicates of taste. It argues that the said thread is unsatisfactory, in that it downplays certain exchanges that constitute the core disagreement data. Additionally, several arguments to the effect that the exchanges in question don't amount to disagreement are considered and rejected.

show abstract

Section: Metalinguistic Usesmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Many Uses of Predicates of Taste and the Challenge from Disagreement

Zeman

2016

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several philosophers have raised this objection but, for the moment, we will focus on Garcia-Carpintero (2008 I was just saying that Bill is short for a basketball player on rough estimates for the purposes of coffee talk; we were not contemplating your levels of precision; thus I was not wrong.…”

Section: The Elaboration Objectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although Kennedy (2013) accepts that these data are real, the consensus is that these data are not real (cf. (Garcia-Carpintero, 2008; 1 I go along with Garcia-Carpintero (2008) and Marques and Garcia-Carpintero (2014) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Elaboration and intuitions of disagreement

Davies

2016

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mark Richard argues for truth-relativism about claims made using gradable adjectives. He argues that truth-relativism is the best explanation of two kinds of linguistic data, which I call: true cross-contextual reports and infelicitous denials of conflict. Richard claims that such data are generated by an example that he discusses at length. However, the consensus is that these linguistic data are illusory because they vanish when elaborations are added to examples of the same kind as Richard's original. In this paper I defend the reality of Richard's data. I show that, in trying to make their point, Richard's critics have focused upon examples that are similar in some respects to Richard's original but which lack a crucial feature of that original. When we ensure that this feature is in place, elaborations which make the data vanish are not possible. Richard's critics therefore fail to show that the data generated by Richard's original example are illusory.

show abstract

“…Lo distintivo de las posiciones contextualistas que hemos esbozado (y otras) es que el estándar epistémico de conocimiento es fijado por hechos relativos a quien atribuye conocimiento (García-Carpintero 2008). El contextualismo integrativo, que defendemos, parece compartir únicamente con estos contextualismos tradicionales la relatividad del estándar epistémico de justificación a contextos y nuestra posición no se compromete con indicar cuáles son los hechos relevantes que determinan el tipo de contexto.…”

Section: Figuraunclassified

Contextualismo integrativo: una manera de ordenar las distintas nociones de justificación epistémica

Gutiérrez

Campos

2013

THEORIA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMEN: Argumentamos que el tipo de contextualismo que defendemos, el contextualismo integrativo, ofrece una manera de ordenar e integrar algunos de los distintos conceptos de justificación en pugna. Mostraremos de qué modo, puesto que cada uno de estos conceptos implica distintas intuiciones y estándares de justificación de una creencia, es posible distinguir diferentes contextos de atribución de justificación igualmente vá-lidos entre sí. En particular, sostendremos que el contextualismo integrativo muestra que las disputas entre dos teorías de la justificación, a saber, el externismo y el internismo, se establecen sobre el supuesto erró-neo de que existe un único concepto válido de justificación. Palabras clave: externismo; internismo; fundacionismo; coherentismo; intuiciones; estándares.ABSTRACT: We shall argue that the kind of contextualism we defend, viz., the integrative contextualism, offers a way to coordinate and integrate some of the various competing concepts of justification. We shall show how, since each of these concepts involves different intuitions and standards of justification of beliefs, it is possible to distinguish different contexts of justification attribution, each of them, equally valid. In particular, the integrative contextualism, we defend, shows that disputes between two theories of justification, namely the externalist and internalist theories of justification, are established on the erroneous assumption that there is only one valid concept of justification. Keywords: externalism; internalism; foundationalism; coherentism; intuitions; standards.La epistemología contemporánea ha tenido varias tareas, de las cuales dos muy importantes han sido abordar el problema escéptico y el análisis de los conceptos epistémi-cos básicos, como son el de justificación y el de conocimiento. Dentro de aquellas propuestas que han tratado de abordar el escepticismo recientemente ha sobresalido el contextualismo; en cambio, dentro de aquellas que han tratado sobre el análisis de los conceptos mencionados, destaca el debate entre teorías internistas y externistas en teorías de la justificación. Estos dos enfoques han sido desarrollados como proyectos separados. En el presente trabajo construimos un puente teórico entre el contextualismo y el debate contemporáneo en torno a la noción de justificación. Argumentaremos que el contextualismo que defendemos, el contextualismo integrativo, ofrece una manera de ordenar e integrar algunos de los distintos conceptos de justificación en pugna, mostrando de qué modo, puesto que cada uno de estos conceptos implica distintas intuiciones y estándares acerca de la justificación de una creencia, refieren a distintos * Agradecemos el apoyo brindado por el CONACYT a través del proyecto 133345 "Racionalidad, razonamiento y cognición", y por el PROMEP mediante el proyecto (PROMEP/103.5/11/6773) "Justificación y racionalidad". Agradecemos a Sergio F. Martínez y a los dos revisores anónimos de THEORIA sus comentarios.

show abstract

Relativism, Vagueness and What is Said

Cited by 22 publications

References 26 publications

The Many Uses of Predicates of Taste and the Challenge from Disagreement

The Many Uses of Predicates of Taste and the Challenge from Disagreement

Elaboration and intuitions of disagreement

Contextualismo integrativo: una manera de ordenar las distintas nociones de justificación epistémica

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About