Knowledge Tree
Relations (1)
related 1.00 — strongly supporting 11 facts
Reductionism is a central theory in the epistemology of testimony that seeks to explain how testimonial belief is justified by reducing it to other sources like perception, memory, and induction {fact:1, fact:8, fact:10}. The debate over whether testimony requires positive reasons or is akin to perception is defined by the conflict between reductionist and anti-reductionist perspectives {fact:3, fact:6, fact:11}.
Facts (11)
Sources
Epistemology of Testimony | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 6 facts
perspectiveDavid Hume's reductionist perspective posits that individuals properly form beliefs based on testimony only because they have observed other confirmed instances of the veracity of human testimony, meaning testimonial justification is reducible to perceptual, memorial, and inferential justification.
perspectiveLackey (2006a) argues that a subject requires positive reasons to believe a testifier's testimony, despite her criticism of reductionism.
claimGoldberg (2006) argues that both reductionists and non-reductionists can subscribe to a 'buck-passing principle,' where a recipient of testimony retains an epistemic duty to select a reliable testifier, similar to a client's duty to select a competent lawyer.
perspectiveReductionism views testimony as akin to inference and places a relatively heavy burden on the recipient of testimony, whereas anti-reductionism views testimony as akin to perception or memory and places a relatively light burden on the recipient.
claimFew contemporary philosophers endorse the full form of David Hume's reductionist or inferentialist approach to testimonially-based belief.
referenceJennifer Lackey (2006a) and Peter Graham (2006) provide literature reviews categorizing adversaries in the testimony debate based on reductionism versus nonreductionism and inferential versus direct views.
Social Epistemology – Introduction to Philosophy - Rebus Press press.rebus.community 3 facts
claimReductionism in the epistemology of testimony posits that testimony justifies belief because individuals learn through observation that testimony correlates with truth, similar to how one learns that smoke is caused by fire.
claimThomas Reid's argument, known as the 'not enough evidence objection' (NEEO), posits that reductionism implies individuals are rarely justified in believing testimony, which serves as a powerful objection to non-skeptical reductionism.
claimReductionism explains the justification for relying on testimony through a familiar form of inductive justification, which provides it a theoretical advantage over non-reductionism.
Epistemological Problems of Testimony plato.stanford.edu 1 fact
claimA primary motivation for Reductionism is the concern regarding gullibility; Reductionists argue that without the requirement for positive reasons to trust a speaker, individuals would be justified in accepting testimony in irresponsible cases, such as believing a random blogger without evidence of reliability.
Social Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu 1 fact
claimReductionism in epistemology is the view that the justification of beliefs derived from testimony can be reduced to justifications provided by other sources such as perception, memory, and induction.