Philosophical analysis reveals testimony plays a key role in knowledge of mental states, indicating a need for non-testimonial context.
People often tell us about their thoughts, feelings, and desires. This common practice has led some philosophers to claim that testimony is a fundamental way of knowing about others’ minds, a way of knowing that does not epistemically depend on any other way of knowing. In this essay, I shall argue that this view is plausible only if we assume a conception of testimony that aligns it with perception. By contrast, I shall argue that if we adopt a conception of testimony as a type of assurance, then testimonial knowledge would epistemically depend upon our having some non-testimonial knowledge of others’ mental states. More specifically, I shall argue, it would epistemically depend on knowledge based on expressive behaviour. Although one might naturally think this knowledge is either perceptual or inferential, I shall develop an alternative framework for explaining how expressions of mental states secure knowledge of others’ minds.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matthew Parrott (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: