Advertisement

Synthese

pp 1–18 | Cite as

How to be an anti-reductionist

  • Mona Simion
  • Christoph Kelp
S.I. : Epistemic Dependence
  • 88 Downloads

Abstract

One popular view in recent years takes the source of testimonial entitlement to reside in the intrinsically social character of testimonial exchanges. This paper looks at two extant incarnations of this view, what we dub ‘weak’ and ‘modest’ social anti-reductionism, and questions the rationales behind their central claims. Furthermore, we put forth an alternative, strong social anti-reductionist account, and show how it does better than the competition on both theoretical and empirical grounds.

Keywords

Epistemology Testimony Anti-reductionism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We’d like to thank Sandy Goldberg, Peter Graham, John Greco, the audience of a conference on epistemic dependence at the University of Madrid and three anonymous referees for helpful comments on this paper.

References

  1. Adler, J. E. (1994). Testimony, trust, knowing. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 264–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen, S., Ertaç, S., Gneezy, U., Hoffman, M., & List, J. A. (2011). Stakes matter in ultimatum games. The American Economic Review, 101, 3427–3439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audi, R. (1997). The place of testimony in the fabric of knowledge and justification. American Philosophical Quarterly, 34, 405–422.Google Scholar
  4. Audi, R. (2004). The a priori authority of testimony. Philosophical Issues, 14, 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audi, R. (2006). Testimony, credulity, and veracity. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bicchieri, C. (2006). The grammar of society: The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bolton, G. (1991). A comparative model of bargaining: Theory and evidence. Levine’s Working Paper Archive 263, David K. Levine.Google Scholar
  8. Bond, C. F., & DePaulo, B. M. (2006). Accuracy of deception judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 214–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burge, T. (1993). Content preservation. Philosophical Review, 102, 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burge, T. (1997). Interlocution, perception, memory. Philosophical Studies, 86, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burge, T. (1999). Comprehension and interpretation. In L. Hahn (Ed.), The philosophy of Donald Davidson. LaSalle: Open Court.Google Scholar
  12. Coady, C. A. J. (1973). Testimony and observation. American Philosophical Quarterly, 10, 149–155.Google Scholar
  13. Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Douven, I. (2006). Assertion, knowledge and rational credibility. Philosophical Review, 115, 449–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Faulkner, P. (2011). Knowledge on trust. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fricker, E. (1995). Telling and trusting: Reductionism and anti-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Mind, 104, 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goldberg, S. (2006). Reductionism and the distinctiveness of testimonial knowledge. In J. Lackey & E. Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg, S. (2010). Relying on others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goldberg, S. (2014). Interpersonal epistemic entitlements. Philosophical Issues, 24(1), 159–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham, P. J. (2010). Testimonial entitlement and the function of comprehension. In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. Pritchards (Eds.), Social epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Graham, P. J. (2012). Testimony, trust, and social norms. Abstracta, Special Issue 6, 92–117.Google Scholar
  23. Graham, P. J. (2015). Epistemic normativity and social norms. In D. Henderson & J. Greco (Eds.), Epistemic evaluation: Purposeful epistemology (pp. 247–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Greco, J. (2015). Testimonial knowledge and the flow of information. In D. K. Henderson & J. Greco (Eds.), Epistemic evaluation: Purposeful epistemology (pp. 274–291). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greco, J. (2016). What is transmission. Episteme, 13, 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Green, C.R. (2016). Epistemology of testimony. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/ep-testi/.
  27. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heinrich, J., & Heinrich, N. (2007). Why humans cooperate: A cultural and evolutionary explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., & Gintis, H. (Eds.). (2004). Foundations of human sociality: Economic experiments and ethographic evidence from fifteen small-scale societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature. In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), 1888 edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kelp, C. (2009). Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge. By Jennifer Lackey. Philosophical Quarterly, 59, 748–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kelp, C. (forthcoming). Assertion: A function first account. Noûs.Google Scholar
  33. Kelp, C., & Simion, M. (2017). Criticism and blame in action and assertion. Journal of Philosophy, 114, 76–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kraut, R. (1980). Humans as lie detectors: Some second thoughts. Journal of Communication, 30, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lackey, J. (2003). Non-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Nous, 37, 706–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lackey, J. (2007). Norms of assertion. Nous, 41, 594–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lackey, J. (2008). Learning from words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levine, T., Park, H., & McCornack, S. (1999). Accuracy in detecting truths and lies: Documenting the “Veracity Effect”. Communication Monographs, 66, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lipton, P. (1998). The epistemology of testimony. British Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science, 29, 1–31.Google Scholar
  40. Lyons, J. (1997). Testimony, induction, and folk psychology. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Michaelian, K. (2010). In defence of gullibility: The epistemology of testimony and the psychology of deception detection. Synthese, 176(3), 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ochs, J., & Roth, A. E. (1989). An experimental study of sequential bargaining. American Economic Review, 79(3), 355–384.Google Scholar
  43. Pritchard, D. (2004). The epistemology of testimony. Philosophical Issues, 14, 326–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reid, T. (1764). An inquiry into the human mind on the principles of common sense. Excerpts in 1975 edition, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  45. Simion, M. (2016). Assertion: Knowledge is enough. Synthese, 193, 4041–4056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Simion, M. (2018). Testimonial contractarianism. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  47. Vrij, A. (2000). Detecting lies and deceit: The psychology of lying and the implications for professional practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  48. Weiner, M. (2005). Must we know what we say? Philosophical Review, 114, 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PhilosophyUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK
  2. 2.School of English, Communication and PhilosophyCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations