The Contextualist’s Response to Skepticism

Consider the hypothesis that you are a, “brain-in-a-vat being stimulated to have the very sensory experiences [you are] now having." Call that the BIV (short for brain-in-a-vat) hypothesis. Now consider the following Cartesian-style argument:

1. You do not know that the BIV hypothesis is wrong.
2. If you do not know that the BIV hypothesis is wrong, then you do not know that you have hands.
3. Thus: You do not know that you have hands. [from 1,2]

According to the contextualist, whenever someone puts forward this argument, it would be a mistake to deny what they are saying. That is, if you were, at that moment, to contradict any of the claims within their argument—for instance, if you were to say, "I do know that I have hands" thereby contradicting their last claim—then you would be wrong.

However, the contextualist says, that does not mean that, if, in the course of ordinary life, you claim to know that you have hands, you are wrong then as well. According to the contextualist, you still speak truly if, in the course of ordinary life, you say, "I know that I have hands."

But how can that be? How can you be wrong the first time you say, "I know that I have hands," but then right the second time? For this writing assignment, first explain why, according to the contextualist, you are wrong if you say, "I know that I have hands," when in direct conversation with the skeptic, but right if you say, "I know that I have hands," in the course of ordinary life. A few things to think about as you complete this part of the assignment:

• Why, according to the contextualist, are you wrong if you say, "I know that I have hands," when in direct conversation with the skeptic, but right if you say, "I know that I have hands," in the course of ordinary life? The basic idea is that you are in a "high-standards" context when you are in direct conversation with the skeptic, whereas you are in a "low-standards" context when you speak in the course of ordinary life. But this calls out for further explanation. 
  • What does it mean to be in a high-standards context, as opposed to a low-standards context?
  • Why are you in a high-standards context when speaking to the skeptic, but in a low-standards context when having an ordinary conversation in day-to-day life?
  • Supposing that the contextualist is correct to say that you are in a high-standards context when speaking to the skeptic, why does that mean that you would be wrong if you said, in that context, "I know that I have hands"? 
  • Supposing that the contextualist is correct to say that you are in a low-standards context when speaking in ordinary life, why does that mean that you would be right if you said, in that context, "I know that I have hands"?

Finally, offer a brief evaluation of the contextualist’s position. Is it plausible? Why or why not?