Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-54txb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-02T02:15:07.933Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hume and the Role of Testimony in Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Fred Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been argued that Hume's account of testimony is seriously inadequate: an autonomous knower of the sort Hume defends cannot, through simple inductive methods, justify accepting another's testimony as true. This conclusion is no doubt correct. But Hume does not defend the idea of an autonomous knower, nor does he defend relying upon simple inductive methods. An examination of Hume's critique of Descartes’ method of doubt shows him as a defender of what might be called the responsible knower, and reveals the sophistication of the inductive methods he wishes to defend. It is shown that Hume can and does use these methods to justify accepting the testimony of others.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 2010 , pp. 58 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1637/1985. Discourse on Method. In Philosophical Writings, vol. I. Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (tr. and eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. 1641/1985. Meditations on First Philosophy. In Philosophical Writings, vol. II. Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (tr. and eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbon, E. 1776–88/n.d. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 3 vols. New York: Modern Library, Random House.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1739–40/1978. Treatise of Human Nature. Selby-Bigge, L. A. (ed.), Nidditch, P. H. (rev.). 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. 1748/1975. An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. Selby-Bigge, L. A. (ed.), Nidditch, P. H. (rev.). 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, J. 1690/1979. Essay concerning Human Understanding. Nidditch, P. H. (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, D. F. (ed.). 1965. David Hume: Philosophical Historian. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, H. G. 1963. The Problem of Certainty in English Thought, 1630–1690. The Hague: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. 1997. Hume's Defence of Causal Inference. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, F. 1999. The Logic and Methodology of Science in Early Modern Thought: Seven Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. 2008a. The External World and Our Knowledge of It: Hume's Critical Realism, an Exposition and a Defense. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, F. 2008b. “René Descartes: Scientific Method.” In Feiser, J. and Dowden, B. (eds.), Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/desc-sci/Google Scholar