Knowledge Account Of Assertion Research Articles

Assertion, Complexity, and Sincerity

The target of this paper is the ‘simple’ knowledge account of assertion, according to which assertion is constituted by a single epistemic rule of the form ‘One must: assert p only if one knows p’ (where p is a proposition). My aim is to argue that those who are attracted to a knowledge account of assertion should prefer what I call the ‘complex’ knowledge account, according to which assertion is constituted by a system of rules all of which are, taken together, constitutive of assertion. One of those rules—which, following John Searle, I call the ‘preparatory condition’—is of the form ‘One must: assert p only if one knows p.’ All else being equal, simple accounts are preferable to complex accounts. I argue in this paper that all else isn't equal. While the simple knowledge account provides an elegant explanation of certain data, it is hard to see how to integrate the simple knowledge account into a more general theory of illocutionary acts. Because the complex knowledge account avoids this objection while explaining the same data as the simple knowledge account does, I conclude that the complex knowledge account is superior to the simple knowledge account.

Knowledge and the norm of assertion: a simple test

An impressive case has been built for the hypothesis that knowledge is the norm of assertion, otherwise known as the knowledge account of assertion. According to the knowledge account, you should assert something only if you know that it’s true. A wealth of observational data supports the knowledge account, and some recent empirical results lend further, indirect support. But the knowledge account has not yet been tested directly. This paper fills that gap by reporting the results of such a test. The knowledge account passes with flying colors.

Knowledge with and Without Belief

AbstractThis article argues for the thesis that the distinction between propositional and doxastic justification should be extended to knowledge. A consequence of this thesis is that there is a type of knowledge that requires belief and a type that does not. A familiar example strikingly similar to the sort of example used to introduce the propositional/doxastic justification makes a prima facie case. Additional theoretical advantages are revealed when the distinction is applied within the context of some recent epistemological debates. These include debates over the knowledge account of assertion, testimonial knowledge, self‐deception, and the question of whether knowledge can be essentially based on falsehood. It is contended that the sort of distinction offered here provides a way to settle these debates and, at the same time, acknowledge what is correct in the opposing positions.

Unsafe Assertions

John Turri has recently provided two problem cases for the knowledge account of assertion (KAA) to argue for the express knowledge account of assertion (EKAA). We defend KAA by explaining away the intuitions about the problem cases and by showing that our explanation is theoretically superior to EKAA.

Irksome assertions

The Knowledge Account of Assertion (KAA) says that knowledge is the norm of assertion: you may assert a proposition only if you know that it’s true. The primary support for KAA is an explanatory inference from a broad range of linguistic data. The more data that KAA well explains, the stronger the case for it, and the more difficult it is for the competition to keep pace. In this paper we critically assess a purported new linguistic datum, which, it has been argued, KAA well explains. We argue that KAA does not well explain it.

Paradox and the Knowledge Account of Assertion

In earlier work, I have argued that self-referential assertions of the form ‘this assertion is improper’ are paradoxical for the truth account of assertion. In this paper, I argue that such assertions are also paradoxical, though in a different way, for the knowledge account of assertion.

Reinforcing the knowledge account of assertion

Reinforcing the knowledge account of assertion

Two more for the knowledge account of assertion

The Knowledge Account of Assertion (KAA) has received added support recently from data on prompting assertion (Turri 2010) and from a refinement suggesting that assertions ought to express knowledge (Turri 2011). This article adds another argument from parenthetical positioning, and then argues that KAA's unified explanation of some of the earliest data adduced in its favour recommends KAA over its rivals.

Dubious objections from iterated conjunctions

The knowledge account of assertion (KAA)—roughly: one should not assert what one does not know—can explain a variety of Moorean conjunctions, a fact often cited as evidence in its favor. David Sosa has objected that the account does not generalize satisfactorily, since it cannot explain the infelicity of certain iterated conjunctions without appealing to the controversial “KK” principle. This essay responds by showing how the knowledge account can handle such conjunctions without use of the KK principle.

The Express Knowledge Account of Assertion

Many philosophers favour the simple knowledge account of assertion, which says you may assert something only if you know it. The simple account is true but importantly incomplete. I defend a more informative thesis, namely, that you may assert something only if your assertion expresses knowledge. I call this ‘the express knowledge account of assertion’, which I argue better handles a wider range of cases while at the same time explaining the simple knowledge account's appeal. §1 introduces some new data that a knowledge account of assertion well explains. §2 explains the simple knowledge account's advantage over two of its main competitors. §3 presents a problem for the simple account and offers a solution, which is to adopt the express knowledge account. §4 encapsulates the case for the express knowledge account, and offers a unifying vision for the epistemology of belief and assertion. §5 answers an objection. §6 briefly sums up. Even those who ultimately reject my conclusion can still benefit from the new data presented in §1, and learn an important lesson from the problem discussed in §3, which demonstrates a general constraint on an acceptable account of the norm of assertion.

Epistemic Invariantism and Speech Act Contextualism

In this essay I show how to reconcile epistemic invariantism with the knowledge account of assertion. My basic proposal is that we can comfortably combine invariantism with the knowledge account of assertion by endorsing contextualism about speech acts. My demonstration takes place against the backdrop of recent contextualist attempts to usurp the knowledge account of assertion, most notably Keith DeRose's influential argument that the knowledge account of assertion spells doom for invariantism and enables contextualism's ascendancy.

Contextualism, Closure, and the Knowledge Account of Assertion

This paper argues that Epistemic Contextualism, Knowledge Closure, and the Knowledge Account of Assertion are inconsistent. The argument is developed by considering an objection to Contextualism that is unsuccessful. Some Contextualist responses are canvassed and rejected. Finally, it is argued that an analogue of the inconsistency arises for those who accept that justification is closed under known entailment.

Is ‘Know’ an Indexical?

According to contextualism, the content of the predicate ‘know’ changes with the context of utterance, in other words, the truth conditions of knowledge attributions depend on the attributor's context. Invariantists object it and argue that the assertability conditions of knowledge attributions, but not the truth conditions, depend on the attributor's context. Keith DeRose has recently proposed a new argument against such an invariantist response. His argument uses the knowledge account of assertion and the context sensitivity of assertion. I argue that DeRose's argument fails to rule out invariantism so that invariantism is still an important option for us.

IN WHAT SENSE IS KNOWLEDGE THE NORM OF ASSERTION?

The knowledge account of assertion (KAA) is the view that assertion is governed by the norm that the speaker should know what s/he asserts. It is not the purpose of this article to examine all the criticisms nor to try to give a full defence of KAA, but only to defend it against the charge of being normatively incorrect. It has been objected that assertion is governed by other norms than knowledge, or by no norm at all. It seems to me, however, that a number of these criticisms are based on a number of misunderstandings of the notion of a norm and of the way it can regulated a given practice. Once we spell out in what sense knowledge can play a normative role in this context, the KAA appears much more plausible.

Epistemological Contextualism and the Knowledge Account of Assertion

In this paper, I take up an argument advanced by Keith DeRose (Philosophical Review, 111:167–203, 2002) that suggests that the knowledge account of assertion provides the basis of an argument in favor of contextualism. I discuss the knowledge account as the conjunction of two theses—a thesis claiming that knowledge is sufficient to license assertion KA and one claiming that knowledge is necessary to license assertion AK. Adducing evidence from Stalnaker’s account of assertion, from conversational practice, and from arguments often raised in favor of the knowledge account, I suggest that neither the AK nor the KA theses are plausible. That is, I argue that the knowledge account of assertion to which DeRose appeals is in fact not suitable as an account of assertion. Given that DeRose’s argument stands and falls with the knowledge account, I claim that the argument therefore fails.

How to Link Assertion and Knowledge Without Going Contextualist: A Reply to Derose’s "Assertion, Knowledge, and Context"

Keith DeRose has recently argued that the contextual variability of appropriate assertion, together with the knowledge account of assertion, yields a direct argument that ’knows’ is semantically contextsensitive. The argument fails because of an equivocation on the notion of warranted assertability. Once the equivocation is removed, it can be seen that the invariantist can retain the knowledge account of assertion and explain the contextual variability of appropriate assertion by appealing to Williamson’s suggestion that practical and conversational considerations can influence the extent to which adherence to the constitutive norm of assertion matters.

Must We Know What We Say?

The knowledge account of assertion seems to provide a clear and simple connection between the key concept of epistemology, knowledge, and a key concept of philosophy of language, assertion. According to the knowledge account (presented by Williamson (1996, 2000), DeRose (1996, 2002), and Unger (1975)), assertion is governed by the norm of knowledge: that we should assert only what we know. The knowledge account draws support from cases in which we judge assertion without knowledge to be impermissible, including lottery cases in particular. It is a surprising and powerful hypothesis; it takes two concepts that are defined and motivated independently and posits a strong connection between them that appears to be confirmed by linguistic data. I will argue, however, that the knowledge account cannot succeed in unifying independently important conceptions of knowledge and assertion. On the most obvious accounts of knowledge and assertion, the knowledge account is inferior to a truth account, on which the primary norm on assertion is that we should assert only what is true. The knowledge account simply gets some cases wrong, because assertion without knowledge is sometimes permissible. When we dojudge assertion without knowledge to be impermissible, that judgment can be derived from the truth norm and other norms of conversation.

Fallibilism and concessive knowledge attributions

In this paper Jason Stanley challenge the claim made by Lewis that the contextualist semantics for ‘know’ gives the best explanation for the oddity caused by the claim made by falibilism. Stanley explains the oddity of falibilism without embracing contextualism. Thus, he appeals to a knowledge account of assertion to conclude that the contextualist motivation presupposed by Lewis is not so compelling, since it is not necessary to appeal to semantics in order to explain the oddity of falibilism.