Knowledge Tree
Relations (1)
related 4.39 — strongly supporting 20 facts
Non-reductionism is a philosophical position specifically concerned with the epistemic status of testimony, arguing that it serves as a basic source of justification without requiring independent evidence of a speaker's reliability {fact:1, fact:15, fact:18}. The relationship is defined by the debate over whether testimony requires positive reasons for belief, with non-reductionists asserting that hearers are justified in accepting testimony by default unless defeaters are present {fact:8, fact:9, fact:20}.
Facts (20)
Sources
Social Epistemology – Introduction to Philosophy - Rebus Press press.rebus.community 8 facts
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.
perspectiveNon-reductionists argue that Miranda Fricker's objection regarding gullibility fails because monitoring for the trustworthiness of testimony does not need to be conscious, but can be unconscious and automatic.
claimNon-reductionism regarding testimony is the view that a person S is sometimes justified in believing testimony p even when S lacks testimony-independent evidence that the testimony is reliable.
formulaAccording to non-reductionism, an individual is justified in accepting a speaker's testimony that a proposition (p) is true if and only if the individual receives the testimony that p and the proposition p is undefeated.
perspectiveThe most effective strategy for non-reductionists is to provide an account of testimony as evidence that is both independently plausible and permissive enough to classify testimony as a non-reducible form of evidence.
claimNon-reductionism faces a phenomenalistic problem because, unlike other sources of justification such as perception, introspection, memory, or intuition, testimony does not inherently present itself as true.
perspectiveMiranda Fricker argues that non-reductionism licenses gullibility because it involves a presumptive right to trust testimony without requiring vigilance regarding the trustworthiness of that testimony.
claimReductionism explains the justification for relying on testimony through a familiar form of inductive justification, which provides it a theoretical advantage over non-reductionism.
Epistemology of Testimony | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy iep.utm.edu 6 facts
quoteJennifer Lackey (2005) states: “non–reductionists maintain that testimony is just as basic a source of justification (knowledge, warrant, entitlement, and so forth) as sense-perception, memory, inference, and the like”.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
referenceElizabeth Fricker published 'Varieties of Anti-Reductionism About Testimony—A Reply to Goldberg and Henderson' in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research in 2006.
Epistemological Problems of Testimony plato.stanford.edu 5 facts
claimNon-Reductionists argue that individuals do not need positive reasons to believe a speaker's testimony is reliable in order to be justified in believing that testimony.
claimNon-Reductionists argue that humans are naturally endowed with dispositions to tell the truth, believe what they are told, and detect when a speaker is untrustworthy.
claimOpponents of Non-Reductionism argue that the theory is false because it rejects the requirement for positive reasons to trust testimony, thereby permitting hearers to be irrationally gullible.
perspectiveA primary motivation for Non-Reductionism is to avoid the difficulty of acquiring testimonial knowledge that arises if hearers are required to have positive reasons for believing a speaker's testimony is reliable.
claimNon-Reductionists endorse the 'Presumptive Right,' which states that a hearer is justified in believing a speaker if the hearer does not possess an undefeated defeater indicating the testimony is false or unlikely to be true.
Social Epistemology - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy plato.stanford.edu 1 fact
claimAnti-reductionism is the view that testimony is a basic source of justification, meaning testimony-based beliefs are justified as long as the audience has no reasons for doubt.