Knowledge and Conclusive Evidence

David Hemp
University College Cork

This paper argues that contextualists about knowledge should be contextualists about conclusive evidence. It does so by focusing on the main reasons for believing contextualism about knowledge. The first part of the paper describes these reasons, and argues that there are parallel reasons for believing contextualism about conclusive evidence. The second part argues that, if one endorses both forms of contextualism, then one has reason to endorse Fred Dretske’s claim that when knowledge is based on evidence, this evidence must be conclusive.