An argument against contextualism

What can contextualists contribute to the skepticism debate? Not much, I suggest.

[@KaneB]

My Patreon: www.patreon.com/kanebaker91

[@exalted_kitharode]

That's clever

[@jolssoni2499]

10:46 Can't the contextualist say that no epistemic debate can be had independent of the contextualist/invariantist debate? For example because the traditional concept of knowledge is defective and there are only context/background knowledge relative credences or something like that. Have you read DeRose's The Case for Contextualism and The Appearance of Ignorance?

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

P1-contextualism is epistemically justified only if empirical beliefs are epistemically justified; P2-if skepticism holds then empirical beliefs are not epistemically justified; P3- skepticism holds; C- contextualism is not epistemically justified. I think that will make the argument clearer. We attack p1 by saying: we know about contextualism a priori. We may attack p3 by saying: we have no reason to say that a veridical case is phenomenologically like a skeptical case,we can say it appears to us that way but it's not.

[@joemama1528]

Unrelated to this video. Thoughts on the science wars?

[@perceivingacting]

What do you think of Trump? Touchstone universe.