When Logic Meets Politics: Testimony, Distrust, and Rhetorical Disadvantage

Authors

  • Trudy Govier

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v15i2.2476

Keywords:

feminism, epistemology, testimony, credibility, trust, distrust, belief, marginalization, rhetoric

Abstract

The contested testimony in the Hill-Thomas ease is an illuminating test case for universalistic theories about the reliability of testimony. There is no reasonable alternative to universalistic standards of epistemic appraisal. And yet the charge by feminists and others that such criteria can be applied selectively and used to discredit and silence people is shown to be accurate. The road to a solution is to offer guidelines for the interpretation and application of these norms.

Downloads

Published

1993-01-01

Issue

Vol. 15 No. 2 (1993)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .