Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:15:52.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW TO INSULT AND COMPLIMENT A TESTIFIER

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2016

Finlay Malcolm Open the ORCID record for Finlay Malcolm [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Do we insult or slight a speaker when we reject her testimony? Do we compliment or commend her when we accept her testimony? This paper argues that the answer to both of these questions is “yes”, but only in some instances, since these respective insults and compliments track the reasons a hearer has for rejecting or accepting testimony. When disbelieving a speaker, a hearer may insult her because she judges the speaker to be either incompetent as a knower or insincere as a teller. By outlining the predominant reasons we have for rejecting testimony, I show how not every instance of rejecting testimony embodies this negative evaluation of the speaker. By contrast, testimonial compliments are fewer in number, and are not constitutive of “everyday” testimonial exchanges, since speakers who are competent as knowers and sincere as tellers are merely behaving correctly in accordance with the norms of testifying. Nevertheless, deferring to an authority on belief can be complimentary to that speaker if by doing so we judge her to have some mastery in a particular domain. This suggests an asymmetry between rejecting and accepting testimony. Testimonial insults and compliments also have important moral applications, particularly regarding epistemic injustice and therapeutic trust.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 50 - 64
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1979. ‘What Is It to Believe Someone?’ In Delaney, C. F. (ed.), Rationality and Religious Belief, pp. 141–51. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1946. ‘Other Minds.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplement, 20: 148–87.Google Scholar
Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, E. 2006. ‘Second-Hand Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73: 592–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, S. 2015. Assertion: On the Philosophical Significance of Assertoric Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hazlett, A. Forthcoming. ‘On the Special Insult of Refusing Testimony.’ Philosophical Explorations.Google Scholar
Hinchman, E. 2005. ‘Telling as Inviting to Trust.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70: 562–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, K. 2004. ‘Trust and Terror.’ In Desautels, P. and Walker, M. U. (eds), Moral Psychology; Feminist Ethics and Social Theory, pp. 3–18. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, J. 2009. ‘Assertion, Knowledge, and Lotteries.’ In Pritchard, D. and Greenough, P. (eds), Williamson on Knowledge, pp. 140–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2007. ‘Norms of Assertion.’ Nous, 41: 594–626.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, J. 2012. ‘What is Assertion.’ In Brown, J. and Cappelan, H. (eds), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays, pp. 79–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wanderer, J. 2012. ‘Addressing Testimonial Injustice: Being Ignored and Being Rejected.’ The Philosophical Quarterly, 62: 148–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiting, D. 2015. ‘Truth is (Still) the Norm for Assertion: A Reply to Littlejohn,’ Erkenntnis, 80: 1245–53.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 2012. Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar