Contextualists contend that the knowledge-attributor establishes the context under which knowledge attributions are true. Generally, the ‘context’ may be thought of as the standard for justification or which alternatives must be ruled out in order for the putative knower to have knowledge.
One pro for a contextualist account of ‘know’ is that it seems to concede our intuitions regarding certain skeptical scenarios, while at the same time allowing that we have ordinary knowledge. For example, a contextualist will typically suggest that in ordinary circumstances — say in the bar having a beer, that I know that I have hands, i.e. Tom says: ‘Mary knows that she has hands’ will be true. On the other hand, when skeptical scenarios, such as bodiless brains in vats, are brought up, the contextualist will contend that the context has shifted, in which case Tom’s attribution is false. In other words, while it may appear to be a contradiction to say that Mary both knows that she has hands and does not know that she hands — there is no contradiction because the semantic value of ‘know’ has shifted.
One problem for contextualists is accounting for Gettier situations. Consider, Tom is looking out at a hill and believes that he sees a sheep. In fact, he sees a rock that looks like a sheep. However, there is a sheep on the hill behind the rock and out of Tom’s view. Tom has a justified true belief that there is a sheep on the hill, yet his JTB is not knowledge.
Mary, who is not aware that Tom is in a Gettier situation, asserts that Tom has knowledge that there is a sheep on the hill. Because Mary’s knowledge attribution establishes the standards for justification (and Tom’s being in a Gettier situation is not salient to her) it would seem that her knowledge attribution is true.
The problem comes on two fronts. On the one hand, there is something problematic about ever truly attributing knowledge to someone in a Gettier situation. Tom presumably does not have knowledge…and it’s difficult to see any context in which someone could truly attribute knowledge to him while in his Gettier circumstances. The second problem is that if Mary’s knowledge attribution is true, then it seems to be true based on her ignorance of his situation. It’s the fact that she does not know that he is in a Gettier situation (and thus sheep-like rocks are not a salient feature of her context) that she truly attributes knowledge. How can we make sense of the idea that one’s ignorance about facts would result in knowledge while one’s awareness of facts would make the very same knowledge attribution false?
