1.1. Why don't we accept explicit qualification? Sam is tall, in context of 5 yr old - happy to say this I know I have £5 in my pocket, in context of being able to rule out relevant alternatives - not happy to say this (MacFarlane)
1.2. MacF says that tall and knows work differently
2. 3.Elucidating the contextualist position
2.1. Relevant alternatives
2.2. Ruling out all relevant alternatives. To know that the baby sitter did it one would have to rule out all other relevant suspects. The sceptical move here is to try and pull in far flung possibilities as relevant.
3. 1.Context-sesitivity
3.1. Contextualism about knowledge is the corresponding view held in regard to the verb 'knows'. E.g. Otto: I am hungry Klaus: I am hungry The semantic value of I differs between the two
3.2. The standards of knowledge required to make the knowledge claim differ depending on context
3.3. If someone were to ask if this was the right train and was going to the shop, a low knowledge of this would be appropriate. If the person was going to catch a flight, then to know would require much higher standards and the ability to substantiate knowledge.
4. 2.Dealing with the sceptic
4.1. We know by low standards that we are wearing shoes as we are in a relatively low-stakes context.
4.2. As soon as the sceptic comes along then the stakes are raised and our knowing would have to be an assertion that we knew-by-high-standards.
4.3. So the contextualist position tells us that we know in the everyday world but not when we consider the sceptical hypothesis. Contextualism doesn't violate closure like the Nozickean solution
