ABSTRACT
This chapter surveys some ways in which epistemic reasons ascriptions (ERAs) appear to be context-sensitive and outlines a framework for thinking about the nature of this context-sensitivity that is intimately related to their explanatory function. Some apparent contextual variability in the acceptability of ERAs is triggered by changes in which alternative hypotheses are relevant in the conversational context. Changes in which body of information is relevant provide an example of how the acceptability of ERAs appears to vary depending on the context of utterance. ERAs can be true or false in different contexts depending on the stringency of the relevant threshold or standard. Two kinds of apparent context-sensitivity in ERAs parallel kinds of context-sensitivity in causal talk. As with causal talk, what is most naturally cited as a reason and what is treated as a mere 'background' condition seems contextually variable.
