Why do we trust the testimonial account of others?
Firstly, I briefly wish to outline the parameters of trust and testimony that Zagzebski refers to in her book Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief and then outline the reasons she also rejects the reductionist account, before examining the ways in which she suggests are reasons as to why we trust the testimonial account of others.
For Zagzebski, there is an important distinction between asserting that something is the case, and telling you that something is the case. The latter invokes the doctrine of trust, and involves an implicit contract between speaker and hearer- an interpersonal contract between speaker and hearer so when I tell you that P, I not only assert that P, but I also intend that you accept P because I said so. The act of telling invokes the role of trust; I am asking you to trust me to tell you the truth. So, in this model, the speaker has the epistemic responsibility to make the hearer’s belief justifiable and the hearer can defer to the speaker when challenged by others.
Zagzebski rejects the reductionist account of testimony by proposing that the trust we have in others is not based on any evidence such as inductive inference or perception. Instead we trust ourselves in having knowledge (trust in oneself is a necessary prerequisite for one to have evidence anyway. She asks, how can one search for evidence if they do not trust themselves at the first place?) and we then direct this trust upon others because we believe that there faculties are similar or comparable to our own, and that they are similarly searching for the truth, so for consistency, we trust others as we trust ourselves. Therefore, it is on the basis of trus...
... middle of paper ...
...quisite for knowledge, in which testimony is included.
For Zagzebski, the authority of testimony and the rejection of the reductionist account of testimony is that it is a model of trust in testimony in which the hearer directly relies on the speaker: the speaker is said to be conveying a truth to another person. This it is done so for a reason- the good of both the speaker and hearer- and to convey the truth that has been transmitted and participate in the norm of truthfulness, so that the hearer is justified in their instance of knowledge. We know we can rely on the good of the speaker and their search for the truth, because this is what we, ourselves, do, and we are justified in directing what we experience onto that of others: we grant each other prima facie because of the shared quality that we all reasonably trust both ourselves and others.
The thesis of the Epilogue comes from an unorthodox definition of faith and belief. Belief in the Cartesian World refers to something that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The key term in this definition
H J McCloskey intelligently put his thoughts together and shared his beliefs in his article called “On Being an Athiest” addressing some key arguments discussed in atheism and theism from an atheistic point of view. He makes no apologies for bringing up a difficult topic and for trying to argue persuasively for his views. He makes a great point when he states, “…I make no apology for doing so, as it is useful for us to remind ourselves of the reasons for and virtues of our beliefs (50).” Whether a theist or an atheist we should know what we believe and why we believe what we believe. This paper will use the material recently studied in Philosophy to respond to “proofs” and ideas put forth by McCloskey in his article.
Zagzebski defines knowledge by expressing the relationship between the subject and the truth proposition. A truth claim becomes knowledge when your state of belief makes cognitive contact with reality. What it is to know that you understand something is different from having a relationship with something. Propositional knowledge, that can be known or believed, is her focus due to simplicity. The criteria required for belief is to have a thought, followed by augmentation with experience. The minimal criteria for a definition of knowledge must incorporate two types of “good”; a moral and an ethical. These truths are implemented to develop the foundation on which Zagzebski later builds her definition.
It addresses a dilemma similar to the chicken and the egg dilemma of which comes first. In skepticisms reasoning, belief is necessary before establishing knowledge. He argues that knowledge can be used to explain beliefs just as how beliefs can be used to justify knowledge. His ideas are valid and are apparent in society. For example, in research, Williamson’s approach is represented in the process of formulating a hypothesis. Researchers use previous knowledge to formulate a hypothesis, or belief, on the outcome of their research. All in all, Williamson’s critique of skepticism is well developed and
In his essay “An Argument for Skepticism”, Peter Unger makes the case for the “universal form of the skeptical thesis”. He is arguing for the position that any type of knowledge is impossible for any person. His argument seems to be a simple one, derived from two very clear hypotheses, but that is not the case. This paper is an attempt to show that while philosophically interesting, Unger’s attack on knowledge is not nearly so damaging as he contends.
Nozick takes this further, however, with his “tracking theory”. Nozick adds conditions to the requirements of truth and belief. His conditions are as follows: (1) P is true (2) S believes that P (3) if it were not the case that P, S would not believe P (4) If it were the case that P, then S would believe P. Through this, Nozick means to show that knowledge is a belief that tracks the truth in a reliable fashion. Closure, the idea that we ...
In recent years, the use of eyewitness testimonies as evidence in court cases has been a subject in which various researchers have been interested in. Research suggests that eyewitness testimonies are actually not reliable enough to use as primary evidence in court cases. There have been many cases in which an innocent person gets sent to prison for a crime they did not commit because an eyewitness testified that they were the ones that they saw at the scene of the crime. Researchers’ goal is to improve the legal system by finding out whether eyewitness testimonies should be used in the court of law or not.
Eyewitnesses are such a powerful tool because, “...eyewitnesses are too persuasive in the sense that their confidence and other qualities of their testimony are greatly exaggerated.”(Wells/Bradfield 1998). This can be a useful tool in any courtroom, heavily turning a case in one's favor. However, this can also be (and often is) a dangerous aspect to using eyewitnesses in a trial, because a witness who strongly believes in their identification of a suspect can solidify a verdict, even if the suspect is innocent. It becomes monumentally more dangerous when you find that the eyewitness’ confidence can be swayed into a desired direction. Researchers Wells and Bradfield had to take into account the different variables that factor into the confidence levels of eyewitnesses spanning the gap between the identification of a suspect and their testimony. To help narrow this window, the researchers employed what they called a “postidentification feedback paradigm”, which through only administering feedback after the viewing and identification processes allows the researchers to assume that any variation of recollection stemming from the use of feedback manipulation would be forms of false recall about the witnessing process (Wells/Bradfield
“The bedrock of the American judicial process is the honesty of witness in trial,” (Engelhardt, 1999, p. 25). Eyewitnesses have become the most critical piece in uncovering the truth about a crime and are heavily relied on by the criminal justice system. They play a vital role in identifying, charging, and ultimately convicting a suspected criminal. This is why it is extremely important that the eyewitness evidence be accurate and reliable.
The Article also thoroughly discusses the scientific steps taken for assessing the eyewitness interviews and identification procedures. Also it includes a list of factors during the crime that may have changed the eyewitness accuracy in criminal trials. By using this accurate and thorough method, the criminal justice system will hopefully reduce the amount of wrongful convictions from eyewitness error. The prevalence of eyewitness errors poses a major dilemma for the criminal justice system. Because in cases it's usually the only primary source of evidence that is available. We know of this because a study in 1987 there were 77,000 criminal cases that were based off of eyewitness testimonies each year in the united states. This was the primary sole evidence in almost all of them. Now know that many of these cases have been ruled faulty is making many people question how many people are innocently put into jail each year under false eyewitness statements. Now the criminal justice suit has been trying to find ways of making sure that people are not wrongfully convicted. They are starting with improving judges and improving attorneys. Ability to assess the accuracy of
Davies, G., & Hine, S. (2007). Change Blindness and Eyewitness Testimony. The Journal of Psychology,141(4), 423-434. doi:10.3200/jrlp.141.4.423-434
Blind faith is hard for many. Clifford takes the side of Evidentialism, which is the assertion t
Gettier undermines the traditional understanding of knowledge by showing that a person can make an apparently proper inference from a belief one is justified in holding, but which is false. He proves that we can arrive at a justified true belief, but the truth of which is unrelated to the premises that it was inferred from. It is “possible for a person to be justified in believing a proposition that is in fact false”. In his first example Gettier shows that one can infer a true statement from a false proposition. To briefly outline the case, Smith has strong evidence...
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false
The argument that is used in the idea of skepticism has comparable and incompatible views given from Augustine and Al-Ghazali. Both monologues cover and explain the doubts one should have, due to the