As its proponents generally admit, EC is something that one needs to be argued into: it takes work to come to think, for example, that there can be situations in which we have two subjects, exactly alike psychologically, possessing the very same history and the same evidence with regard to p, etc., with respect to only one of whom ‘S knows that p’ expresses a truth: we seem, if anything, to be intuitive Invariantists.[5] As one leading contextualist says, many resist the contextualist thesis, and “those who do accept [it] generally do so only as a result of being convinced by philosophical reflection” (Cohen 1999, 78).