Graduate studies at Western
Episteme 5 (2):pp. 160-179 (2008)
|Abstract||This article proposes that a general theory of assessment of historical testimony should do justice to the long tradition of adjudication in accordance with maxims of reliability and competence. I argue that an explanatory genealogical theory (along lines first adumbrated by Charles Seignobos) satisfies this condition, and that it has further notable virtues: respect for the strengths of rival theories, regard for the links between adjudication of testimony and other basic procedures of historical inquiry, and the promise of profitable lines of investigation|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Antoni Diller (2008). Testimony From a Popperian Perspective. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 38 (4):419-456.
Tony Pitson (2006). George Campbell's Critique of Hume on Testimony. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 4 (1):1-15.
Joel P. Eigen (2006). The Case of the Missing Defendant: Medical Testimony in Trials of the Unconscious. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 14 (3):177-181.
Steven L. Reynolds (2002). Testimony, Knowledge, and Epistemic Goals. Philosophical Studies 110 (2):139 - 161.
Robert Audi (2013). Testimony as a Social Foundation of Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (3):507-531.
Paul Thagard (2005). Testimony, Credibility, and Explanatory Coherence. Erkenntnis 63 (3):295 - 316.
Aaron Meskin (2004). Aesthetic Testimony: What Can We Learn From Others About Beauty and Art? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (1):65–91.
Jennifer Lackey (2006). The Nature of Testimony. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (2):177–197.
Axel Gelfert (2010). Hume on Testimony Revisited. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy 13:60-75.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,403 of 738,393 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?