Questions…

Thought experiment Give some examples of beliefs that David Hume (1711-76) was a you hold which are based on reductionist (see definition) about Who do you trust the most? testimony and some examples of testimony. As such he was Suppose that this person comes up beliefs that you hold which are not sceptical that testimony alone to you and tells you that they’ve based on testimony. In each case could support knowledge, just seen the most extraordinary explain either why the basis for the without further (non-testimonial) thing: a tennis ball suddenly flew belief is testimonial or non- good reasons to believe. A upwards, out of their hands, and testimonial. famous expression of Hume’s then shot off mysteriously toward reductionist leanings is present in the sun. You ask if your friend is Why can’t we just believe his thinking about testimony that joking, but they assure you they everything we are told (i.e., all a miracle occurred. Given that are not. Your friend has never lied instances of testimony that are Hume thinks that a rational to you before, and insists that— presented to us)? How might this person proportions his belief to although this event sounds very lead us astray? the evidence he has for that belief, unlikely—they saw it with their he thinks that where an event own eyes and promise you that it Why might it be problematic to testified to is sufficiently really did happened. Several days refuse to form beliefs on the basis extraordinary (like a miracle) then pass, and your friend continues to of testimony? How might this limit the testimonial evidence must tell you the exact same story. us? also be of a very remarkable quality too if it is to be credible. Questions: How might it be problematic to Hence even very reliable Do you have a good reason to refuse to form one’s beliefs on the witnesses might face a difficult, believe that things happened as basis of testimony? How might this and perhaps impossible, task in your friend said? Would you limit us? making sufficiently unlikely believe this testimony? Regardless How does Hume suggest that this events credible. of whether you would, should you? tension can be resolved?

What is testimonial INTRODUCTION TO knowledge? PHILOSOPHY MOOC

Testimonial knowledge is knowledge we gain via the testimony of others. In the usual case, this will simply involve someone telling us what they know, but we can also gain testimonial knowledge in other more indirect ways, such as by reading the testimony of others (in a leaflet like this one, say).

Getting knowledge by testimony is important because there are many things Should you believe Thomas Reid one simply couldn’t find out about for oneself (think, for example, of distant what you hear? historical events). (1710-1796) Question: is getting knowledge by Many of our beliefs Thomas Reid was a great Scottish testimony as easy as just believing whatever are the result of philosopher, a minister at the Church of anyone tells you? (See the pages on Hume Scotland and a Professor at the and Reid for more discussion on this trusting the word of University of Aberdeen. Reid was a non- point). The contemporary debate about others. But to what reductionist (see definition) about testimony divides between two camps, testimony. In his most famous work, An known as reductionism and anti- extent should we Inquiry into the Human Mind on the reductionism. form beliefs based on Principles of Common Sense (1764), he wrote: ‘If there are certain principles, as testimony? Is trusting I think there are, which the constitution REDUCTIONISM: one should base one’s someone ever a route of our nature leads us to believe, and beliefs acquired via testimony on non- which we are under a necessity to take to knowledge? testimonial evidence, and in this sense for granted in the common concerns of testimony is ‘reduced’ to non-testimonial life, without being able to give a reason for them—these are what we call the sources. principles of common sense; and what is manifestly contrary to them, we may ANTI-REDUCTIONISM: knowledge can call absurd’. be had by testimony even in the absence of non-testimonial evidence; trusting another’s word is by itself a route to knowledge.