Elizabeth Fricker

Reliabilism is the dominant theory in contemporary analytic epistemology. This chapter reviews some considerations which throw doubt on the widely accepted thesis or R‐NEC that reliability is necessary for knowledge. It considers whether the generally pessimistic results in the experimental literature from social psychology concerning subjects’ ability in a test situation to tell, from behavioral cues, whether a speaker is lying, present a severe challenge for R‐NEC. The chapter develops a more classic line of thought invoking intuitions about cases which suggests that there is, however, cause from another source to put in question R‐NEC, at least in the case of testimonial knowledge. It elucidates some threads from what has emerged so far, to show how testimony reveals the need for a new kind of analysis, illustrating the need and scope for social epistemology. The chapter proposes Approved‐List Reliabilism as a new general theory of knowledge which incorporates reliabilist intuitions, but at a different point.

We citizens of the 21st century live in a world where division of epistemic labour rules. Most of what we know we learned from the spoken or written word of others, and we depend in endless practical ways on the technological fruits of the dispersed knowledge of others—of which we often know almost nothing—in virtually every moment of our lives. Interest has been growing in recent years amongst philosophers, in the issues in epistemology raised by this fact. One issue concerns the depth and extent of our epistemic dependence on testimony, as we may label this broad epistemic source: Do we have any knowledge at all that is free of epistemic dependence on what we have learned from others? A related question is whether our entitlement to believe what we have learned from others can be explained without invoking any epistemic principles special to testimony. These questions concern, as it were, the macro-epistemology of testimony. In the present discussion I shall focus instead on the micro foundations. Testimony, in our broad sense, can occur through an extensive range of types of spoken and written means of purportedly factual communication, including telephone calls, e-mails and personal letters, lectures and radio broadcasts, newspapers, textbooks and encyclopaedias, personal diaries, and public records of all kinds. But the central paradigm—what started the whole communication thing off—is surely that of face-to-face spoken encounter, when one person tells something to another, thereby intending and hoping to share her knowledge with her audience. I begin by describing the speech act of telling, identifying what takes place in a felicitous act of telling. From the nature of the speech act of telling, we see precisely how it is that knowledge is, when all goes as it should, acquired from teller by trusting hearer, in such an act, and in acts of testimony more broadly.

Testimony is indispensable in the sciences. To deny the propriety of relying on it engenders an untenable scepticism. But this leaves open the issue of what exactly confers a scientist’s epistemic right to rely upon the word of her colleagues. Some authors have suggested a recipient of testimony enjoys an epistemic entitlement to trust the word of another as such, not requiring evidence of her trustworthiness, so long as there is not evidence of her untrustworthiness. I argue that, whether or not such an on-no-evidence entitlement to believe what one is told exists, it shrinks to irrelevance in the explanation of the basis on which scientists take each other’s word in the scientific community. This is so, since a normally knowledgeable adult hearer is typically awash with relevant evidence, direct and circumstantial, for and against, concerning a teller’s trustworthiness, and this swamps any alleged entitlement to believe in the absence of such evidence. There need not be personal knowledge of the teller, since social role and topic provide evidence regarding trustworthiness. I also discuss the individuation of ‘testimony’ as an epistemic kind. I suggest that we should not attempt to define a category with sharp boundaries, but instead characterise a paradigm case—one person telling another something in face-to-face personal communication—and then notice other cases which both resemble and diverge from this in epistemically relevant features—lectures, media broadcasts, personal letters, personal diaries, etc.Author Keywords: Testimony; Justification; Knowledge; Individualism; Communication.

In _Knowledge and its Limits_ (KAIL) chapters 1 and 2, Timothy Williamson argues for what he rightly advertises as a surprising thesis: that knowing is a mental state (KMS). This chapter aims to show, first, that Williamson's case for KMS is not proven: while he removes some obstacles to accepting knowing as a fully mental state, he has no argument that compels KMS. Secondly, it argues that despite this removal of some obstacles, others remain: there are still strong grounds to resist KMS, which are not merely an expression of inertial prejudice in our thinking about the mental, and about knowing.