Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Testimony constitutes an irreducible, non-inferential source of justification, as argued by C.A.J. Coady's anti-reductionism about testimony.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
We implicitly assess speaker competence and honesty; this evaluation grounds justification even if not conscious or explicit.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Anti-reductionism risks accepting false testimony as justified belief if speaker seems sincere, absent reliability constraints.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Distinguishing testimonial justification from gullibility requires some inferential uptake of speaker credibility facts.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
We rely on testimony for most knowledge (history, science, medicine) without consciously inferring it from speaker reliability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Requiring inference from reliability presupposes we already know reliability facts, creating regress without independent justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Children acquire language and knowledge through testimony before developing inferential reasoning capacities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.