David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222):84–95 (2006)
Anti-reductionists hold that beliefs based upon comprehension (of both force and content) of tellings are non-inferentially justified. For reductionists, on the other hand, comprehension as such is not in itself a warrant for belief: beliefs based on it are justified only if inferentially supported by other beliefs. I discuss Elizabeth Fricker's argument that even if anti-reductionism is right in principle, its significance is undercut by the presence of background inferential support: for mature knowledgeable adults, justification from comprehension as such plays no active role, and is superseded by inferential warrant. I show that her argument begs important questions. Inferential and non-inferential support combine to over-determine the justification of comprehension-based beliefs
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Elizabeth Fricker (1995). Critical Notice: Telling and Trusting: Reductionism and Anti-Reductionism in the Epistemology of Testimony. Mind 104 (414):393-411.
Elizabeth Fricker (2002). Trusting Others in the Sciences: A Priori or Empirical Warrant? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (2):373-383.
Christopher J. Insole (2000). Seeing Off the Local Threat to Irreducible Knowledge by Testimony. Philosophical Quarterly 50 (198):44-56.
By Matthew Weiner (2003). Accepting Testimony. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211):256–264.
Albert Casullo (2005). Epistemic Overdetermination and A Priori Justification. Philosophical Perspectives 19 (1):41-58.
Citations of this work BETA
J. Adam Carter & Philip J. Nickel (2014). On Testimony and Transmission. Episteme 11 (02):145-155.
Nathan Ballantyne (2015). The Significance of Unpossessed Evidence. Philosophical Quarterly 65 (260):315-335.
Benjamin McMyler (2007). Knowing at Second Hand. Inquiry 50 (5):511 – 540.
Igor Douven & Stefaan E. Cuypers (2009). Fricker on Testimonial Justification. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (1):36-44.
Patrick Rysiew (2007). Beyond Words: Communication, Truthfulness, and Understanding. Episteme 4 (3):285-304.
Similar books and articles
Albert W. Musschenga (2011). The Epistemic Value of Intuitive Moral Judgements. Philosophical Explorations 13 (2):113-128.
Deborah Tollefsen (2007). Group Testimony. Social Epistemology 21 (3):299 – 311.
David J. Alexander (2012). Inferential Internalism and Reflective Defeat. Philosophia 40 (3):497-521.
Andrew D. Cling (2003). Self-Supporting Arguments. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):279–303.
David J. Alexander (2012). Weak Inferential Internalism is Indistinguishable From Externalism – A Reply to Rhoda. Journal of Philosophical Research 37:387-394.
Peter J. Graham (2006). Liberal Fundamentalism and its Rivals. In Jennifer Lackey & Ernest Sosa (eds.), The Epistemology of Testimony. Oxford 93--115.
M. Huemer (2002). Fumerton's Principle of Inferential Justification. Journal of Philosophical Research 28:329--340.
Chris Tucker (2012). Movin' on Up: Higher-Level Requirements and Inferential Justification. Philosophical Studies 157 (3):323-340.
David J. Alexander (2012). Weak Inferential Internalism. Journal of Philosophical Research 37:357-377.
Peter J. Graham (2006). Testimonial Justification: Inferential or Non-Inferential? Philosophical Quarterly 56 (222):84-95.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads28 ( #139,234 of 1,796,159 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #171,366 of 1,796,159 )
How can I increase my downloads?