Bank Cases, Stakes, and Normative Facts

Abstract

Abstract New experimental evidence is presented which supports the idea that ordinary attributions of knowledge are sensitive to pragmatic factors. It is argued that ordinary knowledge ascriptions are psychologically sensitive to certain normative facts but not stakes, though both factors count as pragmatic. Whereas a difference in stakes can metaphysically necessitate a change in these normative facts, ordinary agents need not spontaneously notice this connection. Once we make this connection explicit to agents in an experimental setting, their attributions of knowledge become sensitive to pragmatic factors. These results can help explain why some prior experimental work did not detect that ordinary knowledge attributions are sensitive to pragmatic factors. It can also help explain why philosophers’ judgments about “bank” cases in the literature differ from the judgments of ordinary people.