{"id":3049,"date":"2011-09-26T05:01:18","date_gmt":"2011-09-26T09:01:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/whamit.mit.edu\/?p=3049"},"modified":"2011-09-25T21:40:10","modified_gmt":"2011-09-26T01:40:10","slug":"lfrg-930-igor-yanovich","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/2011\/09\/26\/lfrg-930-igor-yanovich\/","title":{"rendered":"LFRG 9\/30 - Igor Yanovich"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>WHO: Igor Yanovich<br clear='none'\/>\nWHAT: Embedded epistemic claims in the light of the recent epistemics debate<br clear='none'\/>\nWHEN: Sept 30, 1:00PM-2:30PM<br clear='none'\/>\nWHERE: 32-D831<\/p>\n<p>WHAT EXACTLY: <\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Rather than give a formal talk, I plan to introduce a certain current debate in the literature, and discuss some thoughts about new data bearing on it. This is very much work in progress - I have just started to think about those issues. But I do hope I&#8217;ll convince you that at the very least the issues are fun. <\/p>\n<p>There is currently a big debate between epistemic relativists (e.g., MacFarlane) and &#8220;cloudy contextualists&#8221; (von Fintel and Gillies) about what is going on in the scenarios like this: <\/p>\n<p>(1)\ta. Sarah: The keys might be in the car. <br clear='none'\/>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;b1. Mary: Yeah, that\u0092s right. Let me check.   \/   b2. Mary: No, I\u0092ve checked there an hour ago.<br clear='none'\/>\n&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;c. Sarah, after (b2): OK, then I guess I was wrong. <\/p>\n<p>Suppose that the epistemic claim in (1a) is relative to a modal base representing the speaker&#8217;s, Sarah&#8217;s, knowledge. Then (1a) is only about the private knowledge, and it is mysterious why Mary can reject that claim, why she can act as if Sarah&#8217;s claim was about their common knowledge, and why Sarah may want to retract her earlier claim - even though at the time she made it, she may have been fully right in doing that. <\/p>\n<p>Relativism and cloudy contextualism are two families of approaches which aim to explain puzzles like (1). Both have put forward a lot of evidence in their favor, and despite serious disagreements, converge on many important points. It is hard to evaluate all the arguments, and I will not try to do that on Friday, though I will try to give you their flavor. <\/p>\n<p>Instead, I want to look more closely into an area which has not yet been subject to much scrutiny during the debate: epistemic claims embedded under attitude verbs. The key observation is that in some circumstances, such embedded epistemic claims may behave just as matrix epistemic claims - even though Hacquard (2010) has shown that they have to be dependent on a different source of knowledge than matrix epistemics. As they stand, I think neither relativist nor cloudy contextualist theories can explain the data. <\/p>\n<p>There is a quick fix which seems to favor cloudy contextualism. However, I believe that once we look more carefully at the evidence coming from the functioning of embedded claims in discourse, a more complex and interesting picture emerges. It is that picture which I&#8217;d like to talk about on Friday. Rather than a quick fix, it seems to call for a more thorough analysis of how different sorts of attitude verbs work. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>WHO: Igor Yanovich WHAT: Embedded epistemic claims in the light of the recent epistemics debate WHEN: Sept 30, 1:00PM-2:30PM WHERE: 32-D831 WHAT EXACTLY: Rather than give a formal talk, I plan to introduce a certain current debate in the literature, and discuss some thoughts about new data bearing on it. This is very much work [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3049","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-talks"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3049","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3049"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3049\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3056,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3049\/revisions\/3056"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ling-phil.mit.edu\/whamit\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}