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 from a source whose reliability is unknown to the hearer does not put the hearer in a position to know the testified proposition.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
A person is utterly reliable with regard to whether p is the case.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The hearer has no information about that person's reliability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Reliability of a testimonial source that is unknown to the hearer is not sufficient to generate knowledge in the hearer.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
2 perspectives
Reason against 1 of 2
?
1.
Knowledge requires not merely true belief produced by a reliable process, but that the knower be appropriately connected to the grounds of that reliability (Greco's agent reliabilism).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
A hearer ignorant of a source's reliability cannot integrate that reliability into their epistemic agency, making any resulting true belief a matter of luck rather than knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Epistemic luck of this kind—where the hearer would believe equally from an unreliable source—is precisely what Pritchard's anti-luck epistemology identifies as incompatible with knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason against 2 of 2
?
1.
Transmission of knowledge through testimony requires that the hearer possess adequate epistemic reasons to treat the source as credible, per Fricker's evidential internalism about testimonial justification.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without accessible evidence of reliability, the hearer's acceptance of testimony is epistemically indistinguishable from credulity, which cannot constitute a knowledge-generating doxastic state.
?
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.