The flat earther’s argument is framed in a context where you can’t set aside the possibility that there’s a pervading global conspiracy – albeit one which somehow intermittently leaves glaring errors which give them away. But Phoebe moves him to a “sceptical context” in which if there’s a hint of doubt about something – any possibility that you might be wrong – then you don’t know it at all.
Ross’s proof starts off relying on fossils in museums, books and articles on evolutionary biology, and so on. He’s a palaeontologist and, having admitted he can’t be sure about evolution, how can he “face the other science guys”? Suddenly, Phoebe has him – Ross’s admission destroys his worldview. Can he be so unbelievably arrogant, she asks, that he can’t admit the slightest chance that he might be wrong? Sheepishly, Ross agrees that there might be a chance. Ross piles on the evidence thick and fast. In one episode from Friends, Phoebe and Ross argue about evolution. That said, I claim the flat earther is doing a “Phoebe”. And in that case, you don’t know the details. In the second case, even though nothing about you has changed, the context has. The contextualist says that in the first case, you know her bank details. Do you really know her bank details? Are you sure? Sensibly, you phone her to double check. But now imagine you’re transferring £50,000. Imagine you’re transferring £10 to your daughter. It only makes sense given a particular context.Įpistemic contextualists say that knowledge is the same.
And it makes no sense to further ask whether I’m really tall or not. So in that context, the sentence is false. But at the try-outs for the Harlem Globetrotters, my measly 5’11" won’t cut it. Surrounded by five year olds at a rollercoaster park, the sentence is true – after all, I can get on all the rides and they can’t. To understand what this is, we first must understand a familiar idea: context shift. I recommend letting philosophy do the work.
0 kommentar(er)
