more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 9214

[filed under theme 13. Knowledge Criteria / C. External Justification / 7. Testimony ]

Full Idea

I may have good reason to believe some testimony, for example, even though the person providing the testimony has no good reason for saying what he does.

Gist of Idea

Unsupported testimony may still be believable

Source

Kit Fine (The Varieties of Necessity [2002], 5)

Book Ref

Fine,Kit: 'Modality and Tense' [OUP 2005], p.256


A Reaction

Thus small children, madmen and dreamers may occasionally get things right without realising it. I take testimony to be merely one more batch of evidence which has to be assessed in building the most coherent picture possible.


The 18 ideas with the same theme [role of reports and beliefs of other people in justification]:

We think testimony matches reality because of experience, not some a priori connection [Hume]
Good testimony needs education, integrity, motive and agreement [Hume, by PG]
We treat testimony with a natural trade off of belief and caution [Reid, by Fricker,M]
The reliability of witnesses depends on whether they benefit from their observations [Laplace, by Hacking]
Knowledge depends on believing others, which must be innate, as inferences are not strong enough [Putnam]
Empathy may not give knowledge, but it can give plausibility or right opinion [Putnam]
Unsupported testimony may still be believable [Fine,K]
Vindicating testimony is an expression of individualism [Kusch]
Testimony does not just transmit knowledge between individuals - it actually generates knowledge [Kusch]
Some want to reduce testimony to foundations of perceptions, memories and inferences [Kusch]
Testimony won't reduce to perception, if perception depends on social concepts and categories [Kusch]
A foundation is what is intelligible, hence from a rational source, and tending towards truth [Kusch]
Testimony is an area in which epistemology meets ethics [Kusch]
Powerless people are assumed to be unreliable, even about their own lives [Kusch]
Burge says we are normally a priori entitled to believe testimony [Fricker,M]
We assess testimonial probabilities by the speaker, the listener, the facts, and the circumstances [Fricker,M]
Testimonial judgement is not logical, but produces reasons and motivations [Fricker,M]
Assessing credibility involves the impact of both the speaker's and the listener's social identity [Fricker,M]