Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:13:32.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TESTIMONIAL ENTITLEMENT, NORMS OF ASSERTION AND PRIVACY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2013

Philip J. Nickel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to assurance views of testimonial justification, in virtue of the act of testifying a speaker provides an assurance of the truth of what she asserts to the addressee. This assurance provides a special justificatory force and a distinctive normative status to the addressee. It is thought to explain certain asymmetries between addressees and other unintended hearers (bystanders and eavesdroppers), such as the phenomenon that the addressee has a right to blame the speaker for conveying a falsehood but unintended hearers do not, and the phenomenon that the addressee may deflect challenges to his testimonial belief to the speaker but unintended hearers may not. Here I argue that we can do a better job explaining the normative statuses associated with testimony by reference to epistemic norms of assertion and privacy norms. Following Sanford Goldberg, I argue that epistemic norms of assertion, according to which sincere assertion is appropriate only when the asserter possesses certain epistemic goods, can be ‘put to work’ to explain the normative statuses associated with testimony. When these norms are violated, they give hearers the right to blame the speaker, and they also explain why the speaker takes responsibility for the justification of the statement asserted. Norms of privacy, on the other hand, directly exclude eavesdroppers and bystanders from an informational exchange, implying that they have no standing to do many of the things, such as issue challenges or questions to the speaker, that would be normal for conversational participants. This explains asymmetries of normative status associated with testimony in a way logically independent of speaker assurance.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 10 , Special Issue 2: Privacy, Secrecy, and Epistemology , June 2013 , pp. 207 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Adler, Jonathan. 2010. ‘Epistemological Problems of Testimony.’ In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (retrieved Dec. 2012, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2010/entries/testimony-episprob).Google Scholar
Carter, J. Adam, and Gordon, Emma C. 2011. ‘Norms of Assertion: The Quantity and Quality of Epistemic Support.’ Philosophia, 39: 615–35.Google Scholar
DeRose, Keith. 2002. ‘Assertion, Knowledge, and Context.’ Philosophical Review, 111: 167–203.Google Scholar
Douven, Igor. 2006. ‘Assertion, Knowledge, and Rational Credibility.’ Philosophical Review, 115: 449–85.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G. 1988. The Importance of What We Care About. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, Elizabeth. 2006. ‘Second-Hand Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73: 592–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, Mikkel. 2012. ‘Discursive Justification and Skepticism.’ Synthese, 189: 373–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford. 2006. ‘Reductionism and the Distinctiveness of Testimonial Knowledge.’ In Lackey, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), The Epistemology of Testimony, pp. 127–44. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Sanford 2011. ‘Putting the Norm of Assertion to Work: The Case of Testimony.’ In Brown, J. and Cappelen, H. (eds), Assertion: New Philosophical Essays, pp. 175–95. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graham, Peter J. 2006. ‘Liberal Fundamentalism and its Rivals.’ In Lackey, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), The Epistemology of Testimony, pp. 93–115. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, John. 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinchman, Edward. 2005. ‘Telling as Inviting to Trust.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70: 562–87.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan. 2009. ‘Assertion, Knowledge and Lotteries.’ In Greenough, P. and Pritchard, D. (eds), Williamson on Knowledge, pp. 140–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lackey, Jennifer. 2007. ‘Norms of Assertion.’ Noûs, 41: 594–626.Google Scholar
McMyler, Benjamin. 2011. ‘The Epistemic Significance of Address.’ Synthese, DOI 10.1007/s11229-011-9871-2.Google Scholar
Moran, Richard. 2006. ‘Getting Told and Being Believed.’ In Lackey, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), The Epistemology of Testimony, pp. 272–306. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickel, Philip J. 2012. ‘Trust and Testimony.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 93: 301–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Belknap.Google Scholar
Shiffrin, Seana Valentine. 2008. ‘Promising, Intimate Relationships, and Conventionalism.’ Philosophical Review, 117: 481–524.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason. 2005. Knowledge and Practical Interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Unger, Peter. 1975. Ignorance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, Matthew. 2005. ‘Must We Know What We Say?’ Philosophical Review, 114: 227–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar