This thesis is concerned with J.L. Austin’s work on the topic of empirical knowledge. Austin encourages us to attend to our everyday epistemic and discursive practices, and specifically to the particular circumstances in which we might ordinarily say that a person knows something. I begin by considering what kind of illumination on the topic of empirical knowledge we might expect to get by following Austin’s approach, and defend Austin’s approach against one influential critique. The focus then shifts to one of Austin’s key observations regarding knowledge, namely that knowing is a matter of having done ‘enough’ for present intents and purposes to establish the truth. I argue that this and other Austinian considerations speak in favour of a contextualist account of knowledge. Finally, I present a novel Austin-inspired response to one particular sceptical puzzle occasioned by what have been referred to as ‘arguments from ignorance’
