WARRANTED ASSERTABILITY MANEUVERS AND THE RULES OF ASSERTION
In responding to the cases that motivate epistemic contextualism, invariantists sometimes use a warranted assertability maneuver (WAM), according to which we mistakenly judge an assertion to be true because we confuse conversational propriety with truth. I argue that no invariantist WAM against Stewart Cohen's Airport Case can succeed. The problem is that such a WAM is inconsistent with the known ways of accounting for the evidence that motivates the knowledge account of assertion.
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: Department of PhilosophyLoyola University New Orleans
Publication date: December 1, 2008