Synthese

pp 1–21 | Cite as

Etiology, understanding, and testimonial belief

Article
  • 128 Downloads

Abstract

The etiology of a perceptual belief can seemingly affect its epistemic status. There are cases in which perceptual beliefs seem to be unjustified because the perceptual experiences on which they are based are caused, in part, by wishful thinking, or irrational prior beliefs. It has been argued that this is problematic for many internalist views in the epistemology of perception, especially those which postulate immediate perceptual justification. Such views are unable to account for the impact of an experience’s etiology on its justificational status (see Markie (2005, 2006, 2013), McGrath (2013), Siegel (2012, 2013a, b), and Vahid (2014)). Our understanding of what we have been told can also be affected by, for example, wishful thinking or irrational background beliefs. I argue that testimonial beliefs based on such states of understanding can thus be rendered unjustified. This is problematic not only for internalist immediate justification views of testimony, but also for some externalist views, such as the form of proper functionalism endorsed by Burge (1993), and Graham (2010). The testimonial version of the argument from etiology, unlike the perceptual variant, does not rest on the controversial hypothesis that perception is cognitively penetrable. Furthermore, there is a stronger case for the claim that testimonial justification can be undermined by etiological effects since, I argue, testimonial beliefs can be based on the background mental states which affect our understanding of what is said, and our states of understanding are rationally assessable.

Keywords

Testimony Etiology Testimonial justification Cognitive penetration 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For helpful comments and discussion I would like to thank Sebastian Becker, Jessica Brown, Herman Cappelen, Josh Habgood-Coote, Elizabeth Fricker, Patrick Greenough, Matthew Mcgrath, Wes Skolitis, Justin Snedegar, Brian Weatherson, and two anonymous referees for this journal.

References

  1. Bergmann, M. (2004). Externalist justification without reliability. Philosophical Issues, 14, 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bezuidenhout, A. (1997). The communication of de re thoughts. Noûs, 31(2), 197–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burge, T. (1993). Content preservation. Philosophical Review, 102(4), 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burge, T. (2003). Perceptual entitlement. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne, A. (2013). Experience and content. Philosophical Quarterly, 59(236), 429–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2004). Insensitive semantics: A defence of semantic minimalism and speech act pluralism. Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. David, M. (2002). Content essentialism. Acta Analytica, 17, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, M., & Johnsrude, I. (2007). Hearing speech sounds: Top down influences on the interface between audition and speech perception. Hearing Research, 229, 132–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Fricker, E. (2003). Understanding and knowledge of what is said. In A. Barber (Ed.), Epistemology of language (pp. 325–367). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fricker, E. (2006). Varieties of anti-reductionism about testimony: A response to Goldberg and and Henderson. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72(3), 618–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fumerton, R. (2006). The epistemic role of testimony: Internalist and externalist perspectives. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony (pp. 77–92). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fumerton, R. (2013). Siegel on the epistemic impact of checkered experience. Philosophical Studies, 126, 733–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glüer, K. (2013). In defence of the doxastic view of perception. Mind and Language, 24(3), 297–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldberg, S., & Henderson, D. (2006). Monitoring and anti-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72(3), 576–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Graham, P. (2006). Liberal fundamentalism and its rivals. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony (pp. 93–115). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, P. (2010). Testimonial entitlement and the function of comprehension. In D. Pritchard, A. Miller, & A. Haddock (Eds.), Social epistemology (pp. 148–174). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huemer, M. (2013). Epistemological asymmetries between belief and experience. Philosophical Studies, 162(3), 741–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keysar, B., & Henly, A. (2002). Speakers’ overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychological Science, 13(3), 207–212.Google Scholar
  22. Lyons, J. (2006). Testimony, induction, and folk psychology. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lyons, J. (2011). Circularity, reliability, and the cognitive penetrability of perception. Philosophical Issues, 21, 289–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markie, P. (2005). The mystery of direct perceptual justification. Philosophical Studies, 126, 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Markie, P. (2006). Epistemically appropriate perceptual belief. Noûs, 40(1), 118–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markie, P. (2013). Searching for true dogmatism. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and perceptual justification (pp. 248–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McClelland, J., Mirman, D., & Holt, L. (2006). Are there interactive processes in speech perception. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10(8), 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McGrath, M. (2013). Phenomenal conservatism and cognitive penetrability: The bad basis counterexamples. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and perceptual justification (pp. 225–247). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McGrath, M. (Forthcoming). Knowing what things look like. Philosophical Review.Google Scholar
  30. Michaelian, K. (2010). In defence of gullibility: The epistemology of testimony and the psychology of deception detection. Synthese, 176(3), 399–427.Google Scholar
  31. Peet, A. (Forthcoming). Epistemic injustice in utterance interpretation. Synthese, 1–23.Google Scholar
  32. Recanati, F. (2015). From meaning to content: Issues in meta-semantics. In D. Ball & B. Rabern (Eds.), The science of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Shogenji, T. (2006). A defence of reductionism about testimonial justification of beliefs. Noûs, 40(2), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Siegel, S. (2012). Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification. Noûs, 42(2), 201–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Siegel, S. (2013a). The epistemic impact of etiology of experience. Philosophical Studies, 162, 697–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siegel, S. (2013b). Can selection effects on experience influence its rational role? In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Oxford studies in epistemology (pp. 240–268). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford/Cambrige, MA: Blackwell/University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stanley, J. (2005). Hornsby on the phenomenology of speech. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: Supplementry Volume, 79, 131–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Vahid, H. (2014). Cognitive penetration, the downgrade principle, and extended cognition. Philosophical Issues, 24, 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BradfordUK

Personalised recommendations