I present an account of what it is to trust a speaker, and argue that the account can explain the common intuitions which structure the debate about the transmission view of testimony. According to the suggested account, to trust a speaker is to grant her epistemic authority on the asserted proposition, and hence to see her opinion as issuing a second order, preemptive reason for believing the proposition. The account explains the intuitive appeal of the basic principle associated with the transmission view of testimony: the principle according to which, a listener can normally obtain testimonial knowledge that p by believing a speaker who testifies that p only if the speaker knows that p . It also explains a common response to counterexamples to this principle: that these counterexamples do not involve normal cases of testimonial knowledge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arnon Keren (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: