Knowledge vs. Non Knowledge:An Empirical Study on the Context Sensitivity of Knowledge Sentences

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2016.05.003

Abstract

Abstract: The context sensitivity of knowledge sentences has become one of the central topics in experimental philosophy (of language) and experimental epistemology. The present study aims to investigate whether the truth value judgments of knowledge sentences vary with context and which factor(s) may impact folk judgments about knowledge ascriptions/denials. Ninety three postgraduates from eight universities in Shanghai were randomly selected to participate in a questionnaire survey, which includes three pairs of contrastive cases (six in total). SPSS was run to produce the descriptive statistics and paired sample t tests. The findings have provided some evidence for the context sensitivity of knowledge sentences. After the survey a follow up interview was conducted with ten participants selected from the survey takers and the possible factors which may influence the use of knowledge sentences were finally analyzed with the help of our interview data.

CLC Number:

H319

ZHOU Xiang, LIU Longgen. Knowledge vs. Non Knowledge:An Empirical Study on the Context Sensitivity of Knowledge Sentences[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2016, 16(05): 32-38.

References

Brown, J. 2006. Contextualism and warranted assertibility manoeuvres [J]. Philosophical Studies 130: 407-435.
Buckwalter, W.& J. Schaffer. 2015. Knowledge, stakes, and mistakes [J]. Nous 49(2): 201-234.
Buckwalter, W. 2010. Knowledge isn't closed on Saturday: Astudy in ordinary language [J]. Review of Philosophical Psychology(1): 395-406.
Buckwalter, W. 2012. Non-traditional factors in judgments about knowledge [J]. Philosophy Compass 7(4): 278-289.
Buckwalter, W. 2014. The mystery of stakes and error in ascriber intuitions [A].In R.B.James (ed.).Advances in Experimental Epistemology[C]. London: Bloomsbury. 145-174.
DeRose, K. 1992. Contextualism and knowledge attributions [J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 52(4): 913-929.
DeRose, K. 2006. “Bamboozled by our own words”: Semantic blindness and some arguments against contextualism [J]. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73(2): 316-338.
Fantl, J. &M. McGrath. 2009. Knowledge in an Uncertain World [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Feltz, A. &C. Zarpentine. 2010. Do you know more when it matters less? [J]. Philosophical Psychology 23(5): 683-706.
Hansen, N. 2014. Contrasting cases [A].In R.B. James (ed.). Advances in Experimental Epistemology[C]. London: Bloomsbury.71-96.
Hawthorne, J. 2004.Knowledge and Lotteries [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
May, J., W. Sinnott-Armstrong,J.G. Hull&A. Zimmerman. 2010. Practical interests, relevant alternatives, and knowledge attributions: An empirical study [J]. Review of Philosophical Psychology (1) 265-273.
Phelan, M. 2014. Evidence that stakes don't matter for evidence [J]. Philosophical Psychology27(4): 488-512.
Pinillos, A.& S. Simpson. 2014. Experimental evidence supporting anti-intellectualism about knowledge [A].In R.B. James (ed.). Advances in Experimental Epistemology[C]. London: Bloomsbury. 9-44.
Pinillos, A. 2012. Knowledge, experiments and practical interests [A].In J. Brown & M. Gerken (eds.). Knowledge Ascriptions[C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.192-219.
Rysiew, P. 2001. The context-sensitivity of knowledge attributions [J].Nous 35(4): 477-514.
Rysiew, P. 2007. Speaking of knowing [J]. Nous 41(4): 627-662.
Schaffer, J. & J. Knobe. 2012. Contrastive knowledge surveyed [J]. Nous 46(4): 675-708.
Stanley, J. 2005.Knowledge and Practical Interests [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[1]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 35-41.
[2]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 72-81.
[3]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 82-91.
[4]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 92-96.
[5]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 454(4): 97-102.
[6]	XU Ying, BI Yu, ZHANG Yaqing. A Review of Vocabulary and English for Specific Purposes Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 104-108.
[7]	GUO Hongjie, ZHANG Daqiu, DING Dong. An Integrated and Innovative Talents-fostering Model with Practices for FLL Discipline at Chinese Financial Universities in the New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 35-44.
[8]	PAN Haiying, LIU Shuling. Innovation and Development of College Foreign Languages Teaching in the Construction of New Liberal Arts [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 45-52.
[9]	MA Bingjun, CHANG Hui. Research on L2 Chinese Syntactic Processing: Theories and Empirical Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 61-70.
[10]	TAO Jifen. POA-based Reading and Speaking Approach to Oral English Teaching [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 453(3): 96-103.
[11]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 106-110.
[12]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 84-95.
[13]	. [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 452(2): 96-105.
[14]	Lihe HUANG. Foreign Language Teaching and Research in the Post- pandemic Era: A Multimodal Paradigm [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 75-85.
[15]	Yongyan ZHENG. Multilingual Research in a Post-COVID Era: Reflection and Prospection [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2021, 451(1): 64-74.