Conspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimony
In Conspiracies and Lyes I aim to provide an epistemological account of testimony as one of our faculties of knowledge. I compare testimony to perception and memory. Its similarity to both these faculties is recognised. A fundamental difference is stressed: it can be rational to not accept testimony...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Published: |
University College London (University of London)
1999
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.322115 |
id |
ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-322115 |
---|---|
record_format |
oai_dc |
spelling |
ndltd-bl.uk-oai-ethos.bl.uk-3221152015-03-19T04:18:40ZConspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimonyFaulkner, Paul1999In Conspiracies and Lyes I aim to provide an epistemological account of testimony as one of our faculties of knowledge. I compare testimony to perception and memory. Its similarity to both these faculties is recognised. A fundamental difference is stressed: it can be rational to not accept testimony even if testimony is fulfilling its proper epistemic function because it can be rational for a speaker to not express a belief; or, as I say, it can be rational for a speaker to lye. This difference in epistemic function provides the basis for a sceptical argument against testimony. Scepticism is presented as a method rather than a problem: considering how to refute the sceptical argument is taken to be a means of evaluating theories as to how testimonial beliefs are warranted. I consider two strategies for refuting scepticism and, correlatively, two accounts of how testimonial beliefs are warranted. I show these accounts to be neutral across all theories of justification that entertain the project of investigating our faculties of knowledge. A reductionist account explains the warrant supporting our testimonial beliefs in terms of our inductive ground for accepting testimony. An anti-reductionist account explains the warrant supporting our testimonial beliefs in terms of our possessing an entitlement to accept testimony. I show how both positions can be intuitively motivated. In presenting reductionism I appeal to probability theory, empirical psychology and invoke David Hume. In presenting anti-reductionism I invoke John McDowell and Tyler Burge. A refutation of scepticism is provided by a hybrid of reductionism and anti-reductionism. The hybrid is conceived as part social externalism and part individual internalism. In developing this account I provide a means of conceptualising the dynamic that exists between individual knowers and communities of knowledge.100PhilosophyUniversity College London (University of London)http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.322115http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/837/Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
collection |
NDLTD |
sources |
NDLTD |
topic |
100 Philosophy |
spellingShingle |
100 Philosophy Faulkner, Paul Conspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimony |
description |
In Conspiracies and Lyes I aim to provide an epistemological account of testimony as one of our faculties of knowledge. I compare testimony to perception and memory. Its similarity to both these faculties is recognised. A fundamental difference is stressed: it can be rational to not accept testimony even if testimony is fulfilling its proper epistemic function because it can be rational for a speaker to not express a belief; or, as I say, it can be rational for a speaker to lye. This difference in epistemic function provides the basis for a sceptical argument against testimony. Scepticism is presented as a method rather than a problem: considering how to refute the sceptical argument is taken to be a means of evaluating theories as to how testimonial beliefs are warranted. I consider two strategies for refuting scepticism and, correlatively, two accounts of how testimonial beliefs are warranted. I show these accounts to be neutral across all theories of justification that entertain the project of investigating our faculties of knowledge. A reductionist account explains the warrant supporting our testimonial beliefs in terms of our inductive ground for accepting testimony. An anti-reductionist account explains the warrant supporting our testimonial beliefs in terms of our possessing an entitlement to accept testimony. I show how both positions can be intuitively motivated. In presenting reductionism I appeal to probability theory, empirical psychology and invoke David Hume. In presenting anti-reductionism I invoke John McDowell and Tyler Burge. A refutation of scepticism is provided by a hybrid of reductionism and anti-reductionism. The hybrid is conceived as part social externalism and part individual internalism. In developing this account I provide a means of conceptualising the dynamic that exists between individual knowers and communities of knowledge. |
author |
Faulkner, Paul |
author_facet |
Faulkner, Paul |
author_sort |
Faulkner, Paul |
title |
Conspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimony |
title_short |
Conspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimony |
title_full |
Conspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimony |
title_fullStr |
Conspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimony |
title_full_unstemmed |
Conspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimony |
title_sort |
conspiracies and lyes : scepticism and the epistemology of testimony |
publisher |
University College London (University of London) |
publishDate |
1999 |
url |
http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.322115 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT faulknerpaul conspiraciesandlyesscepticismandtheepistemologyoftestimony |
_version_ |
1716736818187075584 |