# Contextualism, Common Sense and Worldview considerations



## ChristianTrader (Apr 22, 2012)

Here is a link to two blog posts by a friend on the subject of context and how it relates to knowledge. I think it is a relatively unique position in evangelical circles.

*Context (Part 1) - What is Contextualism and What do we mean when we say that we know something?*

Summum Bonum: Context (Part 1)

*Context (Part 2) - What is Reliabilism and Why does it beg the question?*

Summum Bonum: Context (Part 2)


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 22, 2012)

Read both. Not sure where this is leading??? Is this trail consistent with the following?:

“Since God is the author of our rational faculties, of each act of knowledge and of whatever genuine truth man knows, God is the ultimate ground of man’s certitude and is surety for the validity of knowledge.” C.F. HENRY GRA I. 328

“There cannot be found the least particle of wisdom, light, righteousness, power, rectitude, or sincere truth which does not proceed from [God], and claim him for its author.” CALVIN I.2.1


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 22, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Read both. Not sure where this is leading??? Is this trail consistent with the following?:
> 
> “Since God is the author of our rational faculties, of each act of knowledge and of whatever genuine truth man knows, God is the ultimate ground of man’s certitude and is surety for the validity of knowledge.” C.F. HENRY GRA I. 328
> 
> “There cannot be found the least particle of wisdom, light, righteousness, power, rectitude, or sincere truth which does not proceed from [God], and claim him for its author.” CALVIN I.2.1



Yes, it is consistent. What in the previous links causes you to doubt the consistency?

CT


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 22, 2012)

ChristianTrader said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Read both. Not sure where this is leading??? Is this trail consistent with the following?:
> ...



I wasn't necessarily doubting the consistency, but its been 25 years since I studied epistemology and was unfamiliar with some of the terms, such as Gettier problems.


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 22, 2012)

Nevermind. Peanut gallery inanity.


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 23, 2012)

Interesting articles, thanks for sharing. I did find the first one a little confusing. By clear does he mean clear and distinct? Also in the second one I think he would have a hard time accounting for certain knowledge claims that would be proven in a way outside of traditional knowledge claims. Let’s say that a girl has a bad feeling about someone and turns out to be right. This claim would not be based on cognitive or syllogistic data but would be based on biological and psychological inputs from the person. There are many claims that are like this and cannot be accounted for in such a logic driven framework. 

Also he faults ordinary-language analysis for not being able to answer the skeptic without ever discussing the paradigm-case argument that arose out of this school. But he does provide food for thought. So again thanks for sharing.

---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------

Paradigm-Case Argument - Encyclopedia of Philosophy | Encyclopedia.com.
Here is a little something on a paradigm-case argument.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 23, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Interesting articles, thanks for sharing. I did find the first one a little confusing. By clear does he mean clear and distinct? Also in the second one I think he would have a hard time accounting for certain knowledge claims that would be proven in a way outside of traditional knowledge claims. Let’s say that a girl has a bad feeling about someone and turns out to be right. This claim would not be based on cognitive or syllogistic data but would be based on biological and psychological inputs from the person. There are many claims that are like this and cannot be accounted for in such a logic driven framework.



Actually such was addressed in the first article. The author wrote about know in a weak sense that allows the knower to be mistaken etc.



> Also he faults ordinary-language analysis for not being able to answer the skeptic without ever discussing the paradigm-case argument that arose out of this school. But he does provide food for thought. So again thanks for sharing.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:15 PM ----------
> 
> ...



I don't know much about the paradigm-case argument, but one question would be whether it is still ordinary language analysis? Or put another way is it the strength of ordinary language analysis or the weakness in the skeptical case that is doing the heavy lifting?


----------



## jwright82 (May 2, 2012)

ChristianTrader said:


> Actually such was addressed in the first article. The author wrote about know in a weak sense that allows the knower to be mistaken etc.



Right but what I have in mind is more than just getting lucky, which doesn’t actually count as knowledge. What I am suggesting is that the women in question knows what she is talking about even if that sort of knowledge cannot be classified under existing epistemological categories or even analyzed the same. I would say that those forms of “weak” knowledge he wrote can be real knowledge only that they must be analyzed on their own ground rather than compared to strong knowledge type categories and analysis.




ChristianTrader said:


> I don't know much about the paradigm-case argument, but one question would be whether it is still ordinary language analysis? Or put another way is it the strength of ordinary language analysis or the weakness in the skeptical case that is doing the heavy lifting?



He seems to lump common-sense realism and ordinary language analysis into the same response towards skepticism. But the movement of ordinary language analysis developed a different response to skepticism that I mentioned. He seems to make it an either or situation, that misses the point because the movement in question developed a third way of dealing with skepticism. I agree with his view of authority in relation to worldview but disagree that the laws of thought are the highest authority one can appeal to.


----------

