Contextualism today is defined as the truth of a particular attribution of knowledge dependent on the context in which that truth is uttered. Over the past few centuries and decades there have been many great debates among philosophers about contextualism and how it can be used to override skepticism. I agree with Cohen's defense of contextualism in terms of both how it responds to skepticism and Conee's objections. Cohen begins his defense of contextualism by first explaining the skeptical paradox. The skeptical paradox here is the paradox that Cohen sees between skepticism and contextualism. Cohen argues that he sees conflict in the paradox, as all terms can be true depending on the context in which they are used. The skeptical paradox is as follows: - (1) I know that P, (2) I do not know that Not-H, (3) I know that P only if I know that Not-H. For starters, Cohen sees two definitive things in this topic. (A) That (1,2 and 3) all appear true and (B) that they appear to conflict at the same time. In this argument P is known as any common-sense statement that an individual would normally make about the world, for example that I have two feet and that Franklin & Marshall is in Lancaster. H would be a skeptical statement/hypothesis. Examples of these are: "I am a disembodied brain in a vat" and there is a mule painted just like a zebra in Lancaster Zoo. Furthermore, Cohen divides these statements into sections depending on the type of individuals making this statement. Cohen divided it into two areas. The first area is where there is a low standard for knowledge, this is meant for individuals who accept knowledge on a daily basis about various things without questioning it, i.e. where the standard for accepting claims/does..... .half of article ......being so we can identify that Cohen's defense of contextualism answers most of the claims that Conee believes do not exist within contextualism. Cohen provides substantial evidence to probe Conee's claims about why contextualism does enough to draw skepticism into our everyday existence without us having to question our attributions of everyday knowledge. While yes, perhaps there is a shift in standards of knowledge, but Cohen's description of how our intuitions play a role in our everyday statements gives precedence for understanding the foundations through which contextualism works over Cohen's description of truth conditions that change contextually to counteract the appeal of skepticism. I believe this helps us understand the importance of contextualism in our world today as a means of understanding and rationalizing knowledge to every standard of knowledge established by Conee..