Authors
David Coady
University of Tasmania
Abstract
Rumours are widely held to be both epistemically and morally suspect. This article concentrates on the epistemic arguments against rumours, since the moral arguments tend to be dependent on them. I conclude that the usual arguments against believing rumours and engaging in rumour-mongering are extremely weak. I compare the epistemic status of rumours to the epistemic status of some rival methods of acquiring information, and conclude that rumours are an important and irreplaceable source of justified belief and knowledge
Keywords Applied Philosophy  General Interest
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2012
ISBN(s) 0739-098X
DOI 10.5840/ijap20062012
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,290
External links

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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

When Experts Disagree.David Coady - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):68-79.
When Experts Disagree.David Coady - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):68-79.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-01-09

Total views
122 ( #97,061 of 2,518,734 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #116,897 of 2,518,734 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes