ABSTRACT
This chapter outlines the intuitive argument for contextualism. The case for contextualism starts with the observation that we apply different epistemic standards in different contexts when making and evaluating knowledge claims. The intuitive argument for contextualism doesn't rest upon any particular Low-High pair such as the Bank Cases or Stuart Cohen's equally well-known Airport Cases. The rest of the intuitive argument for contextualism is devoted to showing that contextualism is better able than its rivals to accommodate and explain Truth. Cross-contextual assessments play an important role in motivating a newer competitor to contextualism, known as relativism about knowledge attributions. Opponents of contextualism have argued that there are also intuitive judgments at odds with contextualism. But relativism is an important emerging paradigm in philosophical semantics, and the question of whether contextualism or relativism better accommodates and explains our intuitions about knowledge claims remains open.
