Overview
This lecture covers Elizabeth Fricker's key ideas on testimony, expertise, trust, and epistemic autonomy, focusing on when it is rational to accept others' testimony as knowledge.
Testimony and Expertise (TAP Principles)
- TAP 1: To properly accept a belief (P) via trust in someone's testimony, the testifier must be more epistemically well placed than yourself, and you must recognize this.
- Being "epistemically well placed" means the testifier is qualified or expert enough that their belief would almost certainly be knowledge.
- Trust in testimony requires recognizing the testifier's expertise compared to your own.
- TAP 1 is necessary but not sufficient because it does not address the testifier's sincerity or the existence of significant contrary testimony.
Sincerity and Contrary Testimony
- Sincerity is assumed for analyzing rational deference; insincerity is treated as a separate issue.
- Significant contrary testimony matters if it comes from equally qualified experts or many independent sources.
TAP 2 and Proper Deference
- TAP 2: Accept another's testimony if the testifier is sincere, epistemically better placed, and no significant contrary testimony exists.
- Deference to experts is rational when you lack knowledge and recognize the testifier’s superior position.
Types of Deference
- Weak Deference: You have no prior firm belief and accept testimony to form a belief.
- Strong Deference: You override your own firm belief in favor of someone's testimony.
Epistemic Autonomy and Self-Governance
- Relying on experts does not eliminate personal epistemic autonomy, but does limit it due to cognitive limitations.
- Trust should be given selectively, not blindly, maintaining a degree of self-governance over one’s beliefs.
Risks and Limitations of Testimony
- Reliance on others for knowledge is risky due to possible deceit or error at each testimonial link.
- Epistemic dependence also creates practical dependence (e.g., on technology and daily conveniences).
- Second-hand knowledge is weaker than first-hand knowledge because you lack the direct evidence.
The Regress Problem and Testimony Chains
- Knowledge from testimony requires that somewhere in the chain, someone has knowledge not based on further testimony (i.e., original evidence).
- Circular testimony chains without an original ground are problematic and lack empirical support.
Evaluating Experts and Folk Psychology
- We rely on folk psychology to judge others' sincerity and expertise.
- When unable to assess evidence directly, we evaluate experts' trustworthiness, though this is not always easy or possible.
- Epistemic self-governance means only accepting testimony when there is good reason for trust.
Key Terms & Definitions
- Epistemically well placed — Sufficiently knowledgeable or expert to form beliefs that are likely to be knowledge.
- Testimony — Information or belief communicated by another, potentially a basis for knowledge.
- TAP 1/TAP 2 — Fricker’s Testimony Acceptance Principles specifying conditions for rationally accepting testimony.
- Deference — Relying on another’s judgment rather than your own.
- Epistemic autonomy/self-governance — The ability to govern one’s own beliefs responsibly.
- Expert — Someone better epistemically placed than another regarding a topic, such that their belief would almost certainly be knowledge.
Action Items / Next Steps
- Memorize TAP 1 and TAP 2 and be able to explain them in your own words.
- Be prepared to discuss when it is rational to accept testimony, and how trust and expertise factor in.
- Review key terms and ensure you understand their definitions as used by Fricker.
- Reflect on examples of deference and epistemic autonomy for examination or discussion.