Abstract
The overwhelming consensus amongst epistemologists is that there is no salient epistemological difference between the addressees of a speaker’s testimony and non-addressees. I argue that this overwhelming consensus is mistaken. Addressees of a speaker’s testimony are entitled to pass the epistemic buck or defer justificatory responsibility for their beliefs back to the testimonial speaker, while non-addressees are not. I then develop a provisional account of address that is in a position to mark this epistemic distinction between addressees and non-addressees.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brandom R. (1983) Asserting. Nous 17: 637–650
Brandom R. (1994) Making it explicit. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Clark H. H., Carlson T. B. (1982) Hearers and speech acts. Language 58: 332–373
Fricker E. (2006) Second-hand knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73: 592–618
Goldberg S. (2006) Reductionism and the distinctiveness of testimonial knowledge. In: Lackey J., Sosa E. (eds) The epistemology of testimony. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hieronymi P. (2008) Responsibility for believing. Synthese 161: 357–373
Hinchman E. (2005) Telling as inviting to trust. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70: 562–587
Lackey J. (2008) Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford
McMyler B. (2007) Knowing at second hand. Inquiry 50: 511–540
McMyler, B. (forthcoming). Testimony, trust, and authority. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moran R. (2005) Getting told and being believed. Philosopher’s Imprint 5: 1–29
Orwell G. (1949) 1984. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc, New York
Owens D. (2006) Testimony and assertion. Philosophical Studies 130: 105–129
Searle J. (1969) Speech acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
McMyler, B. The epistemic significance of address. Synthese 190, 1059–1078 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9871-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9871-2