Skip to main content
Log in

Why we don’t deserve credit for everything we know

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A view of knowledge—what I call the Deserving Credit View of Knowledge(DCVK)—found in much of the recent epistemological literature, particularly among so-called virtue epistemologists, centres around the thesis that knowledge is something for which a subject deserves credit. Indeed, this is said to be the central difference between those true beliefs that qualify as knowledge and those that are true merely by luck—the former, unlike the latter, are achievements of the subject and are thereby creditable to her. Moreover, it is often further noted that deserving credit is what explains the additional value that knowledge has over merely lucky true belief. In this paper, I argue that the general conception of knowledge found in the DCVK is fundamentally incorrect. In particular, I show that deserving credit cannot be what distinguishes knowledge from merely lucky true belief since knowledge is not something for which a subject always deserves credit.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler J.E. (1994). Testimony, trust, knowing. The Journal of Philosophy 91:264–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler J.E. (2002). Belief’s own ethics. MIT, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Audi R. (1997). The place of testimony in the fabric of knowledge and justification. American Philosophical Quarterly 34:405–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Audi R. (1998). Epistemology: A contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Audi, R. (Forthcoming). Testimony, credulity, and veracity. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • Austin J.L. (1979). Other minds. Philosophical papers (3rd Edn). Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • BonJour L. (1985). The structure of empirical knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Burge T. (1993). Content preservation. The Philosophical Review 102:457–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burge T. (1997). Interlocution, perception, and memory. Philosophical Studies 86:21–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm R.M. (1977). Theory of knowledge (2nd Edn). Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J

    Google Scholar 

  • Coady C.A.J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Clarendo Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Coady C.A.J. (1994). Testimony, observation and autonomous knowledge. In: Matilal B.K., Chakrabarti A. (eds) Knowing from words. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 225–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Dummett M. (1994). Testimony and memory. In: Matilal B.K., Chakrabarti A. (eds) Knowing from words. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 251–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner P. (2000). The social character of testimonial knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 97:581–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner P. (2002). On the rationality of our response to testimony. Synthese 131:353–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley R. (1994). Egoism in epistemology. In: Schmitt F. (eds) Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge. Roman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp. 53–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricker E. (1987). The epistemology of testimony. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 61:57–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricker E. (1994). Against gullibility. In: Matilal B.K., Chakrabarti A. (eds) Knowing from words. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 125–161

    Google Scholar 

  • Fricker E. (1995). Telling and trusting: reductionism and anti-reductionism in the Epistemology of Testimony. Mind 104:393–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker E. (2002). Trusting others in the sciences: A Priori or empirical warrant?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33:373–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fricker, E. (Forthcoming a). Knowledge from trust in testimony is second-hand knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

  • Fricker, E. (Forthcoming b). Testimony and epistemic autonomy. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Gettier E. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge?. Analysis 23:121–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, S. C. (Forthcoming). Reductionism and the distinctiveness of testimonial knowledge. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The Epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Goldman A.I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, P. J. (Forthcoming). Liberal fundamentalism and its rivals. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • Greco J. (2000). Two kinds of intellectual virtue. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60:179–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco J. (2003). Knowledge as credit for true belief. In: DePaul M., Zagzebski L. (eds) Intellectual virtue: Perspectives from ethics and epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 111–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy 82:335–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardwig J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 88:693–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume D. (1967). An enquiry concerning human understanding. In: Selby-Bigge L.A. (eds) Hume’s enquiries. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Insole C.J. (2000). Seeing off the local threat to irreducible knowledge by testimony. The Philosophical Quarterly 50:44–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey J. (1999). Testimonial knowledge and transmission. The Philosophical Quarterly 49:471–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey J. (2003). A minimal expression of non-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Noûs 37:706–732

    Google Scholar 

  • Lackey, J. (Forthcoming a). Testimony and the infant/child objection. Philosophical Studies.

  • Lackey, J. (Forthcoming b). Learning from words. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.

  • Lackey, J. (Forthcoming c). It takes two to tango: beyond reductionism and non-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Lehrer, K. (Forthcoming). Testimony and trustworthiness. In J. Lackey, & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • Lipton P. (1998). The epistemology of testimony. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29:1–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J. (1997). Testimony, induction and folk psychology. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75:163–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell J. (1994). Knowledge by hearsay. In: Matilal B.K., Chakrabarti A. (eds) Knowing from words. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 195–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Millgram E. (1997). Practical induction. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Neta R., Rohrbaugh G. (2004). Luminosity and the safety of knowledge. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 85:396–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens D. (2000). Reason without freedom: The problem of epistemic normativity. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantinga A. (1993). Warrant and proper function. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard D. (2005). Epistemic luck. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, B. (2005). The long road to skepticism. manuscript.

  • Reid, T. (1993). The works of Thomas Reid, Sir William Hamilton (Ed.), Charlottesville, VA: Publishing.

  • Reynolds S.L. (2002). Testimony, knowledge, and epistemic goals. Philosophical Studies 110:139–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riggs W.D. (2002). Reliability and the value of knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64:79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Root M. (2001). Hume on the virtues of testimony. American Philosophical Quarterly 38:19–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross A. (1986). Why do we believe what we are told?. Ratio 28:69–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Rysiew P. (2002). Testimony, simulation, and the limits of inductivism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 78:269–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt F.F. (1999). Social epistemology. In: Greco J., Sosa E. (eds) The Blackwell guide to epistemology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 354–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, F. F. (Forthcoming). Testimonial justification and transindividual reason: In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Shope R. (1983). The analysis of knowing. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa E. (1991). Knowledge in perspective: Selected essays in epistemology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa E. (2003). The place of truth in epistemology. In: DePaul M., Zagzebski L. (eds) Intellectual virtue: perspectives from ethics and epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 155–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, E. (Forthcoming). Knowledge: instrumental and testimonial. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Stevenson L. (1993). Why believe what people say?. Synthese 94:429–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strawson P.F. (1994). Knowing from words. In: Matilal B.K., Chakrabarti A. (eds) Knowing from words. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 23–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Cleve, J. (Forthcoming). Reid on the credit of human testimony. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Webb M.O. (1993). Why I know about as much as you: A reply to Hardwig. The Journal of Philosophy 90:260–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner M. (2003). Accepting testimony. The Philosophical Quarterly 53:256–264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne M. (1979). The transmission of knowledge. The Philosophical Quarterly 29:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne M. (1981). The community of knowledge. The Philosophical Quarterly 31:302–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne M. (1986). The community of knowledge. Aberdeen University Press, Aberdeen

    Google Scholar 

  • Welbourne M. (1994) Testimony, knowledge and belief. In: Matilal B.K., Chakrabarti A. (eds) Knowing from words. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 297–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson T. (1996) Knowing and asserting. The Philosophical Review 105:489–523

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson T. (2000) Knowledge and its limits. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagzebski L. (1996) Virtues of the mind: An inquiry into the nature of virtue and the ethical foundations of knowledge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagzebski L. (1999). What is knowledge?. In: Greco J., Sosa E. (eds) The Blackwell guide to epistemology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 92–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagzebski L. (2003). Intellectual motivation and the good of truth. In: DePaul M., Zagzebski L. (eds) Intellectual virtue: perspectives from ethics and epistemology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 135–154

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer Lackey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lackey, J. Why we don’t deserve credit for everything we know. Synthese 158, 345–361 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9044-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9044-x

Keywords

Navigation