Joanna Odrowąż-Sypniewska

In the paper I describe John MacFarlane’s version of relativism about truth. I begin by discussing Twardowski’s (1900) and Kokoszynska’s (1948; 1951) arguments against relativism. They think — just as Haack does (see 2011) — that sentences may be relatively true, if they are incomplete, but once they are completed they become true (or false) absolutely. MacFarlane distinguishes between nonindexical contextualism (which was anticipated by Kokoszynska (sic!)) and relativism which requires the introduction of the context of assessment. According to him only the view which postulates double-indexed (to contexts of utterance and to contexts of assessments) truth is able to explain disagreement in subjective domains and contradicting intuitions about the truth-value of future-contingents

The Agreement-Based Tests for Context Sensitivity In my paper, I present and discuss Cappelen and Lepore's context sensitivity tests, which appeal to says-that reports. In Relativism and Monadic Truth Cappelen and Hawthorne criticize those tests and propose agreement-based tests instead. I argue that such tests do not fare much better. The original Cappelen and Lepore's tests presupposed a minimal notion of says-that. One might postulate a parallel notion of "thin" agreement, according to which people agree that p if they all believe the minimal proposition that p. In this sense we might say - as opposed to what Cappelen and Hawthorne say - that A and B agree that Nicola is smart, even though A thinks that she is smart because she stands way back against strong servers, while B thinks that she is smart because she invested all her money in penny stocks. The paper ends with a critical gloss concerning the case in which Joe Coach predicates tall of people who are over six-foot-eight and Joe Normal, who applies tall to anyone over six-foot tall. I conclude that agreement and disagreement tests are poor indicators of context sensitivity, since their result depends on the prior theoretical standpoint one adopts.

Semantic contextualism claims that sentences ascribing knowledge or lack thereof (sentences like "S knows that p" and "S doesn't know that p") are context dependent: they express different propositions in different contexts of utterance. "Knows that" is either indexical or elliptical and refers to different relations in different circumstances. Invariantism argues in turn that the knowing relation is just one and the proposition expressed by a given knowledge ascription does not depend on context. A special case of invariantism is interest-relative invariantism proposed recently by Jason Stanley. According to |R| knowledge is conceptually linked to practical interests. Whether or not true beliefs count as knowledge depends on the costs of being wrong; on the stakes in a given situation (I may know that the bank will be open on Saturday if I have no important business to be done in the bank; if however I have an impending bill coming due I will not count as knowing that the bank will be open on Saturday even though my evidence as regard bank opening hours has not changed). It is argued in the paper that the difference between various contexts in which knowledge ascriptions are made is not a difference in stakes. Moreover knowledge has to be distinguished from willingness to be sure. One may know something but not be sure about it and may be sure about something but not to know it. The higher the stakes the more sure one usually wants to be, but the height of the stakes does not have such an impact on knowledge

In my paper I argue that a successful theory of vagueness should be able to account for faultless disagreement concerning borderline cases.Firstly, I claim that out of the traditional conceptions of vagueness the best equipped to account for faultless disagreement areparaconsistent solutions. One worry concerning dialetheism is that it seems to allow not only for faultless disagreements between different speakers, but also for such ‘disagreements’ between the given speaker and himself. Another worry, at least for some people, is that subvaluationism and dialetheism account for faultless disagreements by allowing contradictions. Next, I go on to argue that contextual conceptions, which are free from this latter worry, are equally well able to account for such disagreements. To this aim I offer a new account of the usage of personal taste predicates and suggest that we model the usage of all vague predicates on them. The idea is that in clear cases “a is F” means “a is F simpliciter”, whereas in borderline cases it means “a is F-to-me”. Since the boundary between borderline and nonborderline cases depends on context, my solution weds content-contextualism with truth-contextualism.