Knowledge Tree
Relations (1)
cross_type 3.17 — strongly supporting 8 facts
Alvin Plantinga is a prominent epistemologist who extensively analyzes the nature of testimony, arguing that it functions as a 'basic way' of forming beliefs {fact:1, fact:3} and critiquing its status as a source of evidence {fact:5, fact:7}. He further explores the reliability and warrant provided by testimony in comparison to other epistemic sources like perception {fact:2, fact:6, fact:8}.
Facts (8)
Sources
Epistemology of Testimony | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 8 facts
quoteAlvin Plantinga states: "[I]n many situations, while testimony does indeed provide warrant, there is a cognitively superior way. I learn by way of testimony that first-order logic is complete…. I do even better, however, if I come to see these truths for myself…"
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.
quoteAlvin Plantinga, citing Thomas Reid, stated in 1993: "Reid is surely right in thinking that the beliefs we form by way of credulity or testimony are typically held in the basic way, not by way of inductive or abductive evidence from other things I believe. I am five years old; my father tells me that Australia is a large country and occupies an entire continent all by itself. I don’t say to myself, “My father says thus and so; most of the time when I have checked what he says has turned out to be true; so probably this is; so probably Australia is a very large country that occupies an entire continent by itself.” I could reason that way and in certain specialized circumstances we do reason that way. But typically we don’t. Typically we just believe what we are told, and believe it in the basic way. … I say I could reason in the inductive way to what testimony testifies to; but of course I could not have reasoned thus in coming to the first beliefs I held on the basis of testimony."
claimAlvin Plantinga criticizes the view that testimony is necessarily evidence, arguing instead that testimony only supplies evidence when the contingent human design plan provides for it, specifically in an environment where testifiers generally speak the truth.
accountAlvin Plantinga illustrates the 'basic way' of forming beliefs via testimony with the example of a five-year-old child accepting their father's statement about Australia's size without performing an inductive check on the father's reliability.
claimLiberals such as Graham and Plantinga argue that the possibility of interpreting testimonial utterances does not necessarily justify belief in the reliability of testimony, challenging Coady’s Davidsonian argument.
claimAlvin Plantinga (1993) and Robert Audi (2006) suggest that testimony differs from sources like perception because testimonially-based beliefs can be defeated or trumped by other sources of evidence in ways that perception cannot.
quoteAlvin Plantinga (1993) characterizes testimony as a "second-class citizen of the epistemic republic" if it requires the speaker to know the proposition being communicated.