A Contextualist believes that knowledge attributions can be true more easily depending on the context or specific situation. This view makes it clear that skepticism is entirely situational. Meaning, if the situation were changed, then the disbelief of an idea would probably change too. For example, if I said to my girlfriend "I know the restaurant is closed, because it was closed last week too, let's go to a different one" when we are wanting but not needing to go to a restaurant, my opinion is based on the fact that going to the restaurant is not a life or death situation. However, if it were our anniversary and my girlfriend and I HAD to go to the restaurant to keep our relationship steady, I would have said "Well, I don't know if the restaurant is open, let me check their website" even had I been as confident about the restaurant being closed as I was in the first scenario. I think this view of skepticism is interesting and it delves deep into a person's individual experiences. To me, it makes sense that we would change our views based on the situation.
Hello, thank you! this helped a lot. I still have a few more questions to ask so if you don't I'd like you to answer them. If you'd be willing to.
How do the ‘Bank Cases’ form an argument for Contextualism? That is, what are the bank cases and how can one use those cases to construct an argument for Contextualism? What are two criticisms to this argument that McGrath discusses (he offers more than two, but choose only two)? Do you find either of these criticisms effective? Explain why or why not.
Content will be erased after question is completed.