8 found
See also:
Profile: Benjamin McMyler (Texas A&M University)
  1.  55
    Benjamin McMyler (2011). Testimony, Trust, and Authority. Oxford University Press.
    In Testimony, Trust, and Authority, Benjamin McMyler argues that philosophers have failed to appreciate the nature and significance of our epistemic dependence ...
    Direct download  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  2.  17
    Benjamin McMyler (2013). The Epistemic Significance of Address. Synthese 190 (6):1059-1078.
    The overwhelming consensus amongst epistemologists is that there is no salient epistemological difference between the addressees of a speaker’s testimony and non-addressees. I argue that this overwhelming consensus is mistaken. Addressees of a speaker’s testimony are entitled to pass the epistemic buck or defer justificatory responsibility for their beliefs back to the testimonial speaker, while non-addressees are not. I then develop a provisional account of address that is in a position to mark this epistemic distinction between addressees and non-addressees.
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  3.  42
    Benjamin McMyler (2011). Doxastic Coercion. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):537-557.
    I examine ways in which belief can and cannot be coerced. Belief simply cannot be coerced in a way analogous to central cases of coerced action, for it cannot be coerced by threats which serve as genuine reasons for belief. But there are two other ways in which the concept of coercion can apply to belief. Belief can be indirectly coerced by threats which serve as reasons for acting in ways designed to bring about a belief, and it can be (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  4.  12
    Benjamin McMyler (2015). Requesting Belief. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (4):n/a-n/a.
    Requests belong to a family of forms of social influence on action that appear problematic when employed in the attempt to directly influence belief. Explaining why this is so is more difficult than it might at first appear. The fact that belief is not directly subject to the will can only be part of the explanation. It must also be the case that requests are incapable of providing epistemic reasons in a way that parallels that in which they provide practical (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  5.  56
    Benjamin McMyler (2007). Knowing at Second Hand. Inquiry 50 (5):511 – 540.
    Participants on both sides of the contemporary debate between reductionism and anti-reductionism about testimony commonly describe testimonial knowledge as knowledge acquired at second hand. I argue that fully appreciating the distinctive sense in which testimonial knowledge is secondhand supports anti-reductionism over reductionism but also that it supports a particular kind of anti-reductionism very different from that typically offered in the literature. Testimonial knowledge is secondhand in the demanding sense of being justified by the authority of a speaker where this requires (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6.  13
    Benjamin McMyler (2016). Obedience and Believing a Person. Philosophical Investigations 39 (1):58-77.
    I argue that there is a mutually illuminating parallel between the concept of obedience and the concept of believing a person. Just as both believing what a person says and believing what a person says for the reason that the person says it are insufficient for believing the person, so acting as a person demands and acting as a person demands for the reason that the person demands it are insufficient for obeying the person. Unlike the concept of believing a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  7.  42
    Benjamin McMyler (2012). Responsibility for Testimonial Belief. Erkenntnis 76 (3):337-352.
    According to so-called “credit views of knowledge,” knowledge is an achievement of an epistemic agent, something for which an agent is creditable or responsible. One influential criticism of the credit view of knowledge holds that the credit view has difficulty making sense of knowledge acquired from testimony. As Jennifer Lackey has argued, in many ordinary cases of the acquisition of testimonial knowledge, if anyone deserves credit for the truth of the audience’s belief it is the testimonial speaker rather than the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
    Export citation  
    My bibliography  
  8. Benjamin McMyler (2011). Believing What the Man Says About His Own Feelings. In Martin Gustafsson Richard Sorli (ed.), The Philosophy of J. L. Austin. Oxford University Press