Reply to Ken Taylor

Abstract

In Insensitive Semantics (INS) and several earlier articles (see C&L 1997, 1998, 2003, 2004) we appeal to a range of procedures for testing whether an expression is semantically context sensitive. We argue that claims to the effect that an expression, e, is semantically context sensitivity should be made only after checking whether e passes these tests. We use these tests to criticize those we classify as Radical and Moderate Contextualist (Taylor is one of our targets in the latter category.).

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
38 (#398,871)

6 months
1 (#1,459,555)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Herman Cappelen
University of Hong Kong
Ernie LePore
Rutgers - New Brunswick

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

.Ernest LePore & Brian P. McLaughlin (eds.) - 1985 - Blackwell.
Epistemic Modals in Context.Andy Egan, John Hawthorne & Brian Weatherson - 2005 - In Gerhard Preyer & Georg Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy. Oxford University Press. pp. 131-170.
The Assessment Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions.John MacFarlane - 2005 - In Tamar Szabó Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology. Oxford University Press. pp. 197--234.
Contextualism and relativism.Mark Richard - 2004 - Philosophical Studies 119 (1-2):215-242.

View all 7 references / Add more references