Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Testimonial knowledge is genuinely possible through words — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Testimonial knowledge is genuinely possible through words

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Any instance of knowledge has a mode of production distinct from a process that fails to produce knowledge
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.We are able to distinguish erroneous utterances from true utterances by the processes that produce them
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Erroneous utterances do not count as veritable testimony under the Naiyāyika definition of testimony
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.A hearer cannot verify a speaker's trustworthiness without prior knowledge that presupposes the very testimonial knowledge in question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any criterion for distinguishing erroneous from true utterances either regresses infinitely or relies on a non-testimonial faculty that does all the epistemic work.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If non-testimonial faculties suffice to validate testimony, testimony itself contributes nothing irreducible to the production of knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no finite set of utterances determines a unique semantic content, making speaker meaning radically underdetermined.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If the propositional content transmitted through testimony is underdetermined, the hearer forms a belief about their own interpretation rather than the speaker's knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A belief formed about one's own interpretation of an utterance does not constitute knowledge transmitted from the speaker, undermining testimony as a genuine epistemic source.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    A belief formed about one's own interpretation of an utterance does not constitu...A hearer cannot verify a speaker's trustworthiness without prior knowledge that ...Any criterion for distinguishing erroneous from true utterances either regresses...Any instance of knowledge has a mode of production distinct from a process that ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Erroneous utterances do not count as veritable testimony under the Naiyāyika def...If non-testimonial faculties suffice to validate testimony, testimony itself con...

    Similar

    If there is knowledge, then thinking must be real81%All knowledge is knowledge of something.80%If knowledge exists and knowledge is infallible, then not all beliefs ...79%Perfect knowledge can only be knowledge of being79%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: gangesa
    View source passageHide passage
    Yogācāra Buddhists have a pragmatic theory of concept-formation and view language as at best helping us get what we want and avoid what we want to avoid. The Buddha’s words are to be trusted because of his special experience and superior capacity as a reasoner as well as his compassion motivating his most excellent advice. Gaṅgeśa imagines an attack on testimonial knowledge from Buddhist skeptical quarters such that, in fact, there is no knowledge but only helpful or unhelpful advice because the
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    If the propositional content transmitted through testimony is underdetermined, t...
    We are able to distinguish erroneous utterances from true utterances by the proc...
    Wittgenstein's rule-following considerations show that no finite set of utteranc...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit