In this note, I make three corrections to my article Standard Contextualism Strikes Back, JoS, published online in January 2013, doi:10.1093/jos/ffs022. First, I acknowledge a very similar contextualist account proposed before mine by Janice Dowell (2011). Dowell’s and my accounts, developed independently, coincide on most issues, and seem to be complementary on the few remaining ones. Second, I scale down my claim that Cloudy Contextualism by von Fintel and Gillies is not able to account for scenarios with forgotten knowledge. In fact, there is potentially a way for Cloudy Contextualism to resolve the problem. Third, I correct a labelling mistake I made: my account of hidden-eavesdropper cases constitutes a relativist, not a contextualist proposal. However, Practical Relativism, which is a more proper label for my account of eavesdropping, shares most of its predictions with Practical Contextualism, and thus differs very significantly from the rest of the pack of current relativist analyses. A proper practical-contextualist account of hidden eavesdropping is also possible.

中文翻译：

---

对“标准情境主义反击”的更正

在本说明中，我对2013年1月在线发布的文章《标准语境主义反击，JoS》进行了三处更正，doi：10.1093 / jos / ffs022。首先，我承认珍妮丝·多威尔（Janice Dowell（2011））在我之前提出的一个非常类似的情境主义观点。Dowell和我的帐户是独立开发的，在大多数问题上是一致的，并且似乎在其余几个问题上是互补的。其次，我缩小了我的观点，即冯·芬特尔（von Fintel）和吉利斯（Gillies）的“多云情境主义”无法解释那些知识被遗忘的场景。实际上，多云上下文主义有可能解决该问题。第三，我纠正我犯的一个标签错误：我对偷听者案的叙述是相对主义的，而不是情境主义的提议。但是，实用相对论是我进行窃听的更恰当的标签，它与实践语境主义共享大多数预测，因此与当前相对论分析的其余部分有很大不同。对隐藏的窃听进行适当的实践语境分析也是可能的。