This work has four aims: (i) to provide an overview of the current debate about the semantics of knowledge attributions, i.e. sentences of the form ⌜S knows that Φ⌝; (ii) to ground the debate in a single semantic-pragmatic framework; (iii) to identify a methodology for describing the semantics of knowledge attributions; (iv) to go some way towards describing the semantics of knowledge attributions in light of this methodology, and in particular to defend moderate invariantist semantics against its main current rivals. Aims (i) and (ii) are largely clarificatory; in §1 I set out a single semantic-pragmatic framework and over the course of this work show that it can be modified to explain and distinguish the various theories of the semantics of knowledge attributions currently on offer. Aim (iii) is also met in §1. I argue that a theory of the semantics of knowledge attributions T must be able to account for at least some ordinary speakers’ intuitions about the felicity or infelicity of utterances of the sentence ⌜S knows that Φ⌝ (felicity intuitions) purely in terms of its semantics. I also identify a number of theoretical considerations about knowledge and argue that if T conflicts with any one of these considerations, we should presume that T is false. Aim (iv) is met over the course of this work. According to moderate invariantism ⌜S knows that Φ⌝ is true if and only if S confidently believes the proposition expressed by , this proposition is true and S’s epistemic position with respect to this proposition meets a moderately high epistemic standard. In §§2 – 5 I argue that the main current rivals to moderate invariantism – attributor contextualism, contrastivism, subject-sensitive invariantism and assessor relativism – conflict with at least one of the theoretical considerations identified in §1. In §6 I argue that moderate invariantism accounts for some ordinary speakers’ felicity intuitions purely in terms of the semantics of ⌜S knows that Φ⌝; I also argue that it is consistent with all of the theoretical considerations identified in §1. Moreover, in §§2 – 6 I argue that no theory is capable of accounting for all felicity intuitions purely in terms of the semantics of ⌜S knows that Φ⌝, and that only moderate invariantism can successfully explain why speakers have all of these intuitions. In §7 I conclude that moderate invariantism correctly describes of the semantics of knowledge attributions, or at least does so better than its main current rivals.

abstract: ABSTRACT In this work, I provide two novel pieces of evidence in favor of the view that there is pragmatic encroachment on knowledge. First, I present an empirical case via the results of a series of recent experiments to show that folk-knowledge attributions may be sensitive to time constraints even when the latter are construed in a non-truth relevant manner. Along the way, I consider some comments made by Jonathan Schaffer (2006) as it pertains to interpreting time constraints-sensitivity in a manner that supports contextualism, before offering reasons to resist such a treatment. I proceed by applying interest relative invariantism to adjudicate a conflict in the epistemology of testimony namely, the positive reasons requirement a la, reductionism vs. non-reductionism. In particular, I highlight how whether an epistemic subject H needs positive non-testimonial reasons to be justified in accepting S's testimony that p, depends on what is at stake for H in believing that p and how much time H has in deliberating about p. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Philosophy 2013

Pragmatic Encroachment and Epistemic Value”. Some philosopherswho defend pragmatic encroachment” and sensitive invariantism” argue thatchanges in the importance of being right and signiicant increases of the costsof error in given contexts can alter the standards of knowledge. If this view werecorrect, it could explain to some extent the practical value of knowledge. Thispaper argues that the pragmatic encroachment thesis is wrong. It discusses threepossible sources of encroachment on epistemic notions: on belief, on justiication,and on knowledge, and rejects the idea that the epistemic standards change withpractical stakes. Pragmatic factors can be relevant to the formation of belief andto the context of inquiry, although they are not relevant to epistemic evaluation.Epistemic value cannot depend upon such factors. / Algunos filósofos que defienden la intrusión pragmática y el invariantismo sensible sostienen que, en ciertos contextos, los cambios en la importancia de estar en lo cierto y los aumentos significativos de los costos del error pueden alterar los estándares del conocimiento. Si esta postura fuese correcta, podría explicar, hasta cierto punto, el valor práctico del conocimiento. El presente artículo sostiene que la tesis de la intrusión pragmática es incorrecta. Discute tres fuentes posibles de intrusión en nociones epistémicas: en la creencia, en la justificación y en el conocimiento, y rechaza la idea de que los estándares epistémicos cambian según lo que se ponga en juego a nivel práctico. Los factores pragmáticos pueden ser relevantes para la formación de creencias y para el contexto de indagación, pese a que no son relevantes para la evaluación epistémica. El valor epistémico no puede depender de tales factores.

Une nouvelle tentative pour faire face au défi sceptique est menée depuis une quarantaine d’années. Cette tentative repose sur une théorie de la connaissance centrée sur la notion d’alternatives pertinentes. La thèse se propose de montrer les faiblesses de cette théorie, même lorsqu’elle s’appuie sur l’appareillage des mondes possibles, et suggère que le scepticisme demeure la meilleure position épistémologique. Dans le premier chapitre on passe en revue une série de difficultés liées au sujet des alternatives pertinentes et l'on essaye d'argumenter en faveur de l'idée qu'il n'y a peut-être pas, finalement, de moyens en quelque sorte objectifs pour établir quelles sont les alternatives pertinentes relativement à une situation quelconque. À partir du deuxième chapitre, il est procédé à une analyse critique des tentatives de certains auteurs qui se sont servis, pour élaborer leurs propres conceptions bien précises, du langage des mondes possibles. Dans le deuxième chapitre, l'on se concentre surtout sur la question du degré de proximité qu'un monde possible donné doit exhiber pour être considéré comme suffisamment proche du monde actuel et l'on essaye de montrer qu'il n’est probablement pas possible de tracer d'une manière non arbitraire une ligne de démarcation entre ces mondes possibles qu’on peut ignorer et ceux qu’on ne peut ignorer dans nos attributions de connaissance. Dans le troisième chapitre, l'on se concentre surtout sur la question des critères qui devraient guider nos évaluations de proximité et l'on essaye de montrer le caractère discutable de n'importe quelle règle visant à établir quels seraient ces critères-là. / Over the last forty years, a new attempt to answer to the skeptic challenge has been proposed. This attempt is based on a theory of knowledge, which is grounded on the notion of relevant alternative. My dissertation aims to show the problems of such a theory, even when formulated in terms of possible worlds, and suggests that in the end skepticism remains the best epistemological option. In the first chapter, I will offer a discussion of the issue of relevant alternatives, and I will argue in favor of the idea that perhaps there are no objective criteria to establish which are the relevant alternatives with respect to a certain given situation. In the second chapter, I will propose a critical analysis of the attempts of some philosophers to formulate their own proposals in the language of possible worlds. In particular, I will focus on the issue of the proximity degree that a certain possible world must have in order to be considered as sufficiently closed to the real world, and I will try to show that perhaps it is not possible to draw a sharp line of demarcation between those possible worlds that we can ignore and those that we must take into account in our attribution of knowledge. In the third chapter, I will critically discuss the criteria that should guide our evaluations about proximity, and I will show the problematic aspects of any rule aimed to establish which these criteria in effect should be.