The cognitive importance of testimony

Abstract

Abstract. As a belief source, testimony has long been held by theorists of the mind to play a deeply important role in human cognition. It is unclear, however, just why testimony has been afforded such cognitive importance. We distinguish three suggestions on the matter: the number claim, which takes testimony's cognitive importance to be a function of the number of beliefs it typically yields, relative to other belief sources; the reliability claim, which ties the importance of testimony to its relative truth-conduciveness; and the scope claim, according to which testimony's importance is a function of its relative representational power, non-numerically conceived. After laying out these three suggestions, we go on to argue that there is little hope of grounding testimony's cognitive importance in either the number claim or the reliability claim. We conclude with a tentative exploration of the basis and plausibility of the scope claim.

Testimony - An Exploration of Our Trust in Others

“…Contemporary epistemology regards testimony as a crucial source of rational belief and knowledge, and is grounded in the 18 th century works of Thomas Reid and David Hume (Hardwig 1985;Coady, 1992;Audi, 1997;Elgin, 2002;Lackey, 2006;Lackey, 2008;Origgi, 2008;Lackey, 2010;Adler, 2012;Davies & Matheson, 2013). In 1764, Reid argued that humans receive the majority of their knowledge from the reports of others (Reid, [1764]; Davies & Matheson, 2013). Thirteen years later, Hume argued that not only is human testimony the most common source of reasoning, it is also the most useful (Hume, [1777]; Davies & Matheson, 2013).…”

“…In 1764, Reid argued that humans receive the majority of their knowledge from the reports of others (Reid, [1764]; Davies & Matheson, 2013). Thirteen years later, Hume argued that not only is human testimony the most common source of reasoning, it is also the most useful (Hume, [1777]; Davies & Matheson, 2013). In addition, Hume argued that eyewitness reports are necessary to human life (Hume, [1777]; Davies & Matheson, 2013).…”

“…Thirteen years later, Hume argued that not only is human testimony the most common source of reasoning, it is also the most useful (Hume, [1777]; Davies & Matheson, 2013). In addition, Hume argued that eyewitness reports are necessary to human life (Hume, [1777]; Davies & Matheson, 2013). Further to these arguments, if testimony was not considered a source of rational belief then many (if not all) of our beliefs would not be considered rational knowledge (Hardwig 1985;Coady, 1992;Audi, 1997;Elgin, 2002;Lackey, 2006;Adler, 2012;Davies & Matheson, 2013).…”

“…The spread of knowledge through testimony is common (Reid, [1764]; Hume, [1777];Hardwig 1985;Coady, 1992;Audi, 1997;Goldman, 1999;Elgin, 2002;Lackey 2006;Origgi, 2008;Davies & Matheson, 2013). However, as argued by the reductionist view, it is not always considered effective (Graham, 1997;Lehrer, 2006).…”