证言种类:来源因素

IF 0.3 0 PHILOSOPHY
Mohammed Tayssir Safi
{"title":"证言种类:来源因素","authors":"Mohammed Tayssir Safi","doi":"10.1515/opphil-2022-0248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, I argue that the nature of testimony necessitates that we distinguish between testimonies that are based on the informant's sense perception, inference, or on a longer testimonial chain. I further argue that this distinction has epistemic significance, in that it helps us better understand how reliable certain classes of testimonies are and how reliable certain individuals are, based upon the epistemic source that their testimony is ultimately grounded in. I begin the article, in Section 1, by drawing attention to the existence of several different terms for testimony found within the Islamic philosophical tradition. In Section 2, I argue that the essential difference between these terms has to do with the epistemic source that grounds the speaker’s testimony. In Section 3, I move on to explicate how this distinction helps us better understand the reliability of testimony and how it impacts our evaluation of the reliability of different speakers in different contexts. In Section 4, I use this distinction to challenge the necessary condition of speaker competency. Finally, in Section 5, I use the distinction to undermine the belief-transmission view in the epistemology of testimony.","PeriodicalId":36288,"journal":{"name":"Open Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testimonial Kinds: The Source Factor\",\"authors\":\"Mohammed Tayssir Safi\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opphil-2022-0248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this article, I argue that the nature of testimony necessitates that we distinguish between testimonies that are based on the informant's sense perception, inference, or on a longer testimonial chain. I further argue that this distinction has epistemic significance, in that it helps us better understand how reliable certain classes of testimonies are and how reliable certain individuals are, based upon the epistemic source that their testimony is ultimately grounded in. I begin the article, in Section 1, by drawing attention to the existence of several different terms for testimony found within the Islamic philosophical tradition. In Section 2, I argue that the essential difference between these terms has to do with the epistemic source that grounds the speaker’s testimony. In Section 3, I move on to explicate how this distinction helps us better understand the reliability of testimony and how it impacts our evaluation of the reliability of different speakers in different contexts. In Section 4, I use this distinction to challenge the necessary condition of speaker competency. Finally, in Section 5, I use the distinction to undermine the belief-transmission view in the epistemology of testimony.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Philosophy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2022-0248\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2022-0248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我认为,证词的性质要求我们区分基于举证人的感官知觉、推理或更长的证词链的证词。我进一步认为,这种区别具有认识论意义,因为它有助于我们更好地理解某些类别的证词有多可靠,以及某些人有多可靠,这取决于他们的证词最终所依据的认识论来源。在文章的第1部分,我首先提请注意在伊斯兰哲学传统中存在的几个不同的证词术语。在第2节中,我认为这些术语之间的本质区别与作为说话人证词基础的认知来源有关。在第3节中,我将继续解释这种区别如何帮助我们更好地理解证词的可靠性,以及它如何影响我们对不同背景下不同说话人的可靠性的评估。在第四节中,我用这种区别来挑战说话者能力的必要条件。最后,在第5节中,我利用这种区别来削弱证词认识论中的信念传递观点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testimonial Kinds: The Source Factor
Abstract In this article, I argue that the nature of testimony necessitates that we distinguish between testimonies that are based on the informant's sense perception, inference, or on a longer testimonial chain. I further argue that this distinction has epistemic significance, in that it helps us better understand how reliable certain classes of testimonies are and how reliable certain individuals are, based upon the epistemic source that their testimony is ultimately grounded in. I begin the article, in Section 1, by drawing attention to the existence of several different terms for testimony found within the Islamic philosophical tradition. In Section 2, I argue that the essential difference between these terms has to do with the epistemic source that grounds the speaker’s testimony. In Section 3, I move on to explicate how this distinction helps us better understand the reliability of testimony and how it impacts our evaluation of the reliability of different speakers in different contexts. In Section 4, I use this distinction to challenge the necessary condition of speaker competency. Finally, in Section 5, I use the distinction to undermine the belief-transmission view in the epistemology of testimony.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Philosophy
Open Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信