Reductionists like Hume demand that testimony earn its epistemic credentials through inductive confirmation, but anti-reductionists (Coady 1992) argue testimony is a basic, non-inferential source of knowledge on par with perception.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
The qualifications or reasons that make a source of information trustworthy and reliable for knowledge.
Inductive confirmation(in epistemology)
Building trust in something by gathering lots of real-world examples and observations that support it, rather than proving it is definitely true.
Non-inferential(in epistemology)
Knowledge that we gain directly, without having to reason through steps or use logic to figure it out.
Reductionists(in epistemology (study of knowledge))
Philosophers who believe that complex things can be broken down into simpler parts, and that we should only trust testimony (what people tell us) if we can verify it through basic observation and experience.
knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.
testimony(social epistemology)
The transmission of knowledge or information from one person to another by telling them