TESTIMONY PAPER

In this reading Jennifer Lackey explores various perspectives of testimony pertaining to transmitting and

acquiring knowledge.

Lackey begins by introducing the concept of testimony and testimonially based belief. Stating that

testimonially based belief is that formed on the basis of the content of a speaker’s testimony. However,

testimony itself is more broadly defined; being demarcated as widely as “tellings generally” (Elizabeth

Fricker). Lackey simply defines testimony as “acts of communication”.

Furthermore, Lackey establishes the ideas of reductionism and non-reductionism. Where both are

antithetical to each other. Reductionism argues for the fact that testimony is a source of justification and

knowledge, and against the fact that it is epistemically equivalent to perception, inference, and memory

(as sources of justification), whilst also maintaining that accepting testimony is justified so long as a

hearer possesses non-testimonially based positive reasons. Non-reductionism argues the exact opposite.

Following the above, Lackey explores what is known as the interpersonal view of testimony (IVT). The

integral ideas of which are that: In a testimonial exchange, the central idea of the epistemology of

testimony should focus on the interpersonal relationship between two parties; specific features of this

relationship may be responsible for the epistemic potency or impotency of the acquired testimonial

beliefs; epistemic justification provided by the aforementioned features in a testimonial exchange is

nonevidential.

Finally, we will look at testimony as a source of knowledge, from a transmissive versus generative view.

Lackey’s transmissive view maintains that testimonial exchange involves the knowledge of a speaker

being transmitted to a hearer. This branches into the idea of a necessity claim (TVN) where a hearer

acquires knowledge based on a speaker’s testimony only if the speaker knows it is true. And the idea of

the sufficiency claim (TVS), where a hearer comes to glean knowledge based on a speaker’s testimony so
long as the speaker knows it is true, and the hearer does not have knowledge that opposes their

testimony. For the statement view (SV), or generative view of testimony, Lackey emphasizes a speaker’s

statements versus the speaker’s believing. This concept is a generative source of knowledge for the

hearer.

Whilst reading this, I found myself particularly fascinated with the paradigms of reductionism and non-

reductionism, particularly regarding their viability and how we may not be able to function as a society

without either.

Non-reductionism suggests that testimony is epistemically equivalent to sense perception, memory, and

inference. Whilst also maintaining that a hearer is justified to form belief only on the basis of testimony

so long as there are no relevant undefeated defeaters. I personally disagree with both of these

paradigms. On an intrinsic level, testimony is relatively hard to define (Elizabeth Fricker “tellings

generally”), whereas sense perception, memory, and inference are all certain facets of life. For example,

one may smell something, recall a night out, or know that the sky is blue as we have experienced all of

the above firsthand. Contrarily, there is no way to confirm a belief based on mere testimony as many

times we may not already possess the doubtfulness to oppose that belief, so we may accept it blindly.

Hence, it is impossible for testimony as a secondary source of knowledge to be on par with sense

perception, memory, and inference as primary sources of knowledge. Moreover, non-reductionism’s way

of relying on testimony as a sole way to generate belief is societally irresponsible. For instance, a person

who has never seen the ocean may form a belief that it is purple based on the testimony of another

person. Having never seen the ocean, they would have no way to confirm otherwise (no psychological

defeaters) and would accept the testimony as true. This person might then perpetuate this fact to others

who cannot confirm its unreliability, resulting in a loss of epistemic integrity, irrationality, and gullibility;
drastically skewing our perception of the world. Therefore, I believe that non reductionism would not be

viable as a sole design for societal belief.

As the antithesis of non-reductionism, reductionism and its dichotomies are not any better as a

standalone view. Local reductionism states that for a belief to be considered justified, a hearer must

possess non testimonially based positive reasons for thinking that a speaker is a reliable testifier. And

global reductionism maintains that for a belief to be justified, a hearer must have sufficient firsthand

knowledge to confirm the reliability of a testimony. The issue with these ideas is that if we rely on them

solely, it would be logistically impossible to acquire true knowledge or belief as a society. For example,

very young children are seen to acquire vast amounts of knowledge from the testimony of their parents,

teachers, and other children, but they for the most part they do not have the exposure themselves to

sufficiently support any of what they are taught as true. Additionally, this lack of exposure would

inevitably mean that young children do not have the cognitive sophistication to differentiate between a

reliable and unreliable testifier. If from these initial stages of life, we cannot derive true knowledge from

anything, would it not technically mean that as a society true knowledge would be near impossible to

acquire? Whilst reductionism may be a more responsible approach to testimony, it is certainly not a

completely efficient one.

In life, everything is about balance. Similarly, based on the aforementioned we would not be able to

function societally without the implementation of both theories. Whilst non-reductionism may be

irresponsible in on a large scale, it is possible to apply it to mundane testimony: a young child may be

presented with a testimony that grass is green, or that the time is 2:15 in the afternoon based on the

hands of a clock- which they are justified in believing as true because it is not inherently dangerous to

believe otherwise. In this way they might acquire enough knowledge to apply a reductionist point of

view: perhaps a scientific study in botany, proving that grass is green because of a specific structure in
chlorophyll molecules, hence proving an earlier testimony. Whilst antithetical, non-reductionism and

reductionism go hand in hand; a society where one does not exist would be a society with more

questions than answers. And while these two theories may be different sides, they still combine to

complete a coin, if one is missing, that coin is worth nothing.