Chandra Sripada and Jason Stanley on Intuitions about Knowledge

Philosophers have often claimed that people are less inclined to attribute knowledge in cases where the stakes are high than in cases where the stakes are low, and there is a complex and sophisticated debate in the epistemology literature about the philosophical implications of this pattern in people's intuitions.

Unfortunately, when experimental philosophers went out and tested the exact cases that had appeared in the philosophical literature, what they found again and again was that there simply wasn't any effect (see here, here, here, here and here; for an opposing perspective, see here).  People were not substantially less inclined to ascribe knowledge in cases with high stakes than they were in cases with low stakes.  This discovery threatened to undermine the whole philosophical debate.  

In an exciting new development, Sripada and Stanley have now posted a new paper over at Certain Doubts in which they present a series of experimental studies showing that stakes actually do impact knowledge ascriptions.  I'd love to hear what people here think about their findings!

[Comments closed here to allow for discussion at Certain Doubts.]