What's Wrong With Testimony? Defending the Epistemic Analogy between Testimony and Perception

In Jennifer Lackey & Aidan McGlynn (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Social Epistemology. Oxford University Press (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This chapter states the contrast between presumptivism about testimonial warrant (often called anti-reductionism) and strict reductionism (associated with Hume) about testimonial warrant. Presumptivism sees an analogy with modest foundationalism about perceptual warrant. Strict reductionism denies this analogy. Two theoretical frameworks for these positions are introduced to better formulate the most popular version of persumptivism, a competence reliabilist account. Seven arguments against presumptivism are then stated and critiqued: (1) The argument from reliability; (2) The argument from reasons; (3) the argument from positive reasons; (4) the argument from negative reasons; (5) the argument from agency; (6) the argument from psychological force; and (7) the argument from gullibility. If presumptivm is false, it is not for any of these arguments.



External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles


Added to PP

273 (#77,800)

6 months
181 (#18,084)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Peter Graham
University of California, Riverside

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Warrant and proper function.Alvin Plantinga - 1993 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Theory of knowledge.Roderick M. Chisholm - 1966 - Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,: Prentice-Hall.
The skeptic and the dogmatist.James Pryor - 2000 - Noûs 34 (4):517–549.
Content preservation.Tyler Burge - 1993 - Philosophical Review 102 (4):457-488.

View all 70 references / Add more references