Knowledge Tree
Testimonial Reliabilism
Also known as: Testimonial Reliabilists
Facts (12)
Sources
Epistemological Problems of Testimony plato.stanford.edu Apr 1, 2021 12 facts
claimTestimonial Reliabilists who endorse an Anti-Individualistic approach explain differences in testimonial justification between scenarios by requiring both the speaker and hearer to be reliable producers and consumers of testimony.
referenceWright (2019) argues that the challenge of specifying relevant processes in Testimonial Reliabilism is not merely an instance of the 'generality problem' that affects Reliabilist theories of justification more generally.
claimTestimonial Reliabilism can be interpreted in three ways: focusing solely on the reliability of the speaker's production processes, focusing solely on the reliability of the hearer's consumption processes, or focusing on the reliability of both processes.
claimTestimonial Reliabilism posits that a hearer's testimonial justification consists in the reliability of the processes involved in the production of the hearer’s testimonially-based belief, rather than being justified by evidence or non-evidential assurances.
claimSome Testimonial Reliabilists argue that testimonial justification should be understood Individualistically because it consists only in the reliability of cognitive processes internal to the hearer's mind.
claimTestimonial Reliabilists define testimonial justification as the reliability of the processes involved in both the production and consumption of testimony.
perspectiveOpponents of Testimonial Reliabilism argue that the theory faces a significant challenge in specifying which processes—production or consumption—are relevant to a hearer's testimonial justification.
referenceProponents of Testimonial Reliabilism include Peter Graham (2000a, 2000b, 2006a), Sanford Goldberg (2010a), and Ernest Sosa (2010).
claimA version of Testimonial Reliabilism that focuses on the processes involved in the speaker's production of testimony and the hearer's ability to discern sincerity is committed to an asymmetric verdict: a hearer lacks testimonial justification for believing an unreliable testifier (Umar) even if the hearer has no reason to prefer a reliable testifier (Rebecca) over the unreliable one.
claimTestimonial Reliabilism is motivated by the theoretical considerations that support Reliabilist theories of justification generally, as well as its perceived ability to avoid problems associated with other views of testimonial justification.
referenceGraham (2000a, 2000b, 2006a), Goldberg (2010a), and Sosa (2010) have published recent defenses of Testimonial Reliabilism.
perspectiveOpponents of Testimonial Reliabilism argue that the theory's asymmetric verdict is counterintuitive because a hearer cannot be justified in believing one testifier over another when the hearer has no reason to think one source is better than the other.