Robert Stalnaker

Learn More
This paper revisits some foundational questions concerning the abstract representation of a discourse context. The context of a conversation is represented by a body of information that is presumed to be shared by the participants in the conversation – the information that the speaker presupposes a point at which a speech act is interpreted. This notion is(More)
descendant of the original paper (Stanley (forthcoming)) focuses on developing a noncontextualist account of knowledge that captures the intuitive data as well as contextualism. Discussion with the participants at the conference at the University of Massachusetts was very helpful. I should single out John Hawthorne and my commentator Barbara Partee for(More)
The possibilities we consider or eliminate in inquiry are epistemic possibilities. This dissertation is mainly about what it is to say or believe that something is possible in this sense. Chapter 1 ('Epistemic Contradictions') describes a new puzzle about epistemic modals and uses it to explore their logic and semantics. Chapter 2 ('Nonfactualism about(More)
My dissertation asks how we affect conversational context and how it affects us when we participate in any conversation—including philosophical conversations. Chapter 1 argues that speakers make pragmatic presuppositions when they use proper names. I appeal to these presuppositions in giving a treatment of Frege’s puzzle that is consistent with the claim(More)
Philosophers have been puzzling about conditional sentences, and conditional reasoning, at least since the time of the ancient Stoics. In this century, the problem was first raised by logicians trying to give a plausible account of the logic of conditionals, and by philosophers of science in the empiricist tradition trying to understand the relation between(More)
We examine several formulations of the common practice of jumping to conclusions when actions demand decisions but solid knowledge fails. This practice permeates arti cial intelligence, where systems assume many conclusions automatically as defaults simply because the questions they decide are known to occur frequently, and where other assumptions are(More)