Knowledge Tree
Relations (1)
cross_type 4.17 — strongly supporting 17 facts
Peter Graham is a prominent philosopher who has extensively theorized about the nature and epistemology of testimony, as evidenced by his definitions of conservative and liberal approaches to the subject [1], his analysis of testimonial reliability {fact:3, fact:8}, and his categorization of various philosophical views on testimony {fact:11, fact:12}.
Facts (17)
Sources
Epistemology of Testimony | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 16 facts
quotePeter Graham states: "That a source is a source of defeaters for beliefs from another source, or even from itself, does not show that the other source depends for justification on inferential support from another source, or even itself. … The fact that my perception defeats your testimony does not show that testimony is inferential and not direct. Indeed, the fact that testimony-based beliefs sometimes defeat perceptual beliefs does not show that testimony is prior to perception."
perspectiveLiberals such as Peter Graham and Alvin Plantinga argue that the possibility of interpreting testimonial utterances is insufficient to justify a belief in the reliability of testimony.
perspectivePeter Graham (2004) argues that the presence of human freedom in testimonial cases is not a significant reason to prefer a conservative approach to testimony.
claimPeter Graham (2006) categorizes philosophers who support a non-direct view of testimony as including Adler (2002), Audi (1997, 2002, 2004, 2006), Hume (1739), Kusch (2002), Lackey (2003, 2006), Lehrer (1994), Lyons (1997), Faulkner (2000), Fricker (1987, 1994, 1995, 2002, 2006a), and Root (1998, 2001).
claimPeter Graham (2000c) argues that it is possible for testifiers to be generally unreliable even if they successfully interpret each other's statements, challenging the view that interpretation requires an assumption of reliability.
referencePeter Graham provides lists of adversaries in the literature regarding inferential versus direct views of testimony in his 2006 work.
claimPeter Graham (2006) categorizes philosophers who support a direct view of testimony as including Burge (1993, 1997, 1999), Coady (1973, 1992), Dummett (1994), Goldberg (2006), McDowell (1994), Quinton (1973), Reid (1764), Ross (1986), Rysiew (2000), Stevenson (1993), Strawson (1994), and Weiner (2003a).
referencePeter Graham presents a thought experiment involving a testifier (T) raised in an environment where color words are swapped (e.g., "blue" means red), whose testimony is corrected by spectrum-reversing glasses, resulting in true reports despite the underlying errors.
claimPeter Graham argues that a speaker testifies if their statement that p is offered as evidence that p.
claimPeter Graham defines a "reactionary" as someone who accepts only principles of a priori insight, internal experiences, and deduction, while rejecting principles related to memory, enumerative induction, inference to the best explanation, perception, and testimony.
quotePeter Graham (2004) states: “The central claim the Anti-Reductionist makes is that the epistemologies of perception, memory, and testimony should all look more or less alike.”
claimPeter Graham (2006) argues that the fact that one source of knowledge can defeat another does not imply that the defeated source depends on inferential support from the other, nor does it show that testimony is inferior to perception.
claimPeter Graham defines a "conservative" as someone who rejects only principles regarding perception and testimony, a "moderate" as someone who rejects only the principle regarding testimony, and a "liberal" as someone who accepts the principle for testimony.
claimPeter Graham posits a scenario involving a group of people who are honest and skilled at interpreting each other's utterances but remain unreliable testifiers because perceptual or memory failures lead them to hold mostly false beliefs about the world.
claimPeter Graham (2000c) provides a counter-example to the necessity of reliability in interpretation by imagining a group of people who are honest and skilled at interpreting each other, but who hold mostly false beliefs about the world due to perceptual or memory failures.
claimPeter Graham (1997) defines testimony broadly, arguing that a speaker testifies if their statement that p is offered as evidence that p.
Social Epistemology – Introduction to Philosophy - Rebus Press press.rebus.community 1 fact
claimPeter Graham proposes a non-reductionist view where undefeated testimony that a proposition is true provides some reason to believe it, even if that testimony does not constitute sufficient evidence for belief.