A Way Out Of The Skeptical Puzzle

In the course of its own development,epistemology has not been rid of the shadow of skepticism.Skeptics pose a formidable challenge to the validity of knowledge through skeptical puzzle.In order to resist the impact of skepticism,epistemological philosophers put forward a variety of anti-skepticism schemes,among which Dretske’s theory of relative alternatives is a representative one.By examining the properties of the cognitive operator,Dretske diagnoses it as a semi-permeable operator,so that the skeptical hypothesis is excluded from the everyday context,and he tries to respond to the skeptical puzzle by the strategy of negating the closed argument of knowledge.However,Dretske’s approach also encountered many troubles,especially the denial of the validity of the closure argument of knowledge,which did no less harm to epistemology than the skepticism.Therefore,in the process of responding to the skeptical puzzle,Dretske’s theory of relevant alternatives is faced with an unavoidable dilemma.However,the theory of relevant alternatives can get rid of the dilemma it faces through the strategy of contextualism.Stine,Cohen and lewis and other related support selection theory of context,through the selection of the relevant theory of the internal stresses context cannot be wrong theory,knowledge attribution context sensitivity,and the effectiveness of the closing arguments,admits knowledge makes up for the rez g type scheme theory flaw,has realized the theory of relevant alternatives of contextualism.The theory of relevant alternatives after the turn of contextualism not only retains the creativity of Dretske’s scheme,but also has the theoretical advantages of contextualism,which is a feasible way to respond to skeptical puzzle.