Anonymity and testimonial warrant
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2004 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14644 |
Resumo: | Reductionism as an approach to the epistemology of testimony places certain demands on the recipient of testimony that its competitor, antireductionism, does not. After laying out the two approaches and their respective demands on the recipient of testimony, I argue that reductionism also places certainanonymity-shedding demands on the testifier that antireductionism does not. The difficulty of deciding between the approaches leads to a worry about the extent to which the current state of affairs in epistemology can offer secureadvice on the sorts of anonymity constraints that a networked society should place on its testifiers. This worry can be mitigated, I further argue, upon recognition of the fact that the two approaches stand on common ground when it comes to cases of known testimonial conflict. |
id |
UFSC-5_777a953c9aa42b99b2902938b2e8fadd |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/14644 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSC-5 |
network_name_str |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Anonymity and testimonial warrantAnonymity and Testimonial WarrantReductionism as an approach to the epistemology of testimony places certain demands on the recipient of testimony that its competitor, antireductionism, does not. After laying out the two approaches and their respective demands on the recipient of testimony, I argue that reductionism also places certainanonymity-shedding demands on the testifier that antireductionism does not. The difficulty of deciding between the approaches leads to a worry about the extent to which the current state of affairs in epistemology can offer secureadvice on the sorts of anonymity constraints that a networked society should place on its testifiers. This worry can be mitigated, I further argue, upon recognition of the fact that the two approaches stand on common ground when it comes to cases of known testimonial conflict.O reducionismo como uma abordagem à epistemologia do testemunho faz certas exigências àquele que recebe o testemunho, que a posição contrária, o anti-reducionismo, não faz. Depois de estabelecer as duas abordagens e suas respetivas exigências sobre aquele que recebe o testemunho, argumentamos que o reducionismo também faz determinadas exigências àquele que testifica, que o anti-reducionismo não faz. A dificuldade de decidir entre as duas abordagens conduz a uma preocupação com a extensão na qual o estado atual de coisas na epistemologia pode oferecer indicação segura sobre o tipo de exigências de anomimato que uma sociedade posta em rede faria àqueles que prestam testemunho. Argumentamos também que essa preocupação pode ser mitigada com o reconhecimento do fato de que as duas abordagens possuem uma base comum quando é preciso considerar casos de conflito de testemunhos.Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC2004-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1464410.5007/%xPrincipia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 8 No. 2 (2004); 213-231Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 8 Núm. 2 (2004); 213-231Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 8 n. 2 (2004); 213-2311808-17111414-4247reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14644/13391Copyright (c) 2021 David Mathesonhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMatheson, David2016-01-02T12:16:04Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/14644Revistahttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principiaPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/oaiprincipia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br1808-17111414-4247opendoar:2016-01-02T12:16:04Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Anonymity and testimonial warrant Anonymity and Testimonial Warrant |
title |
Anonymity and testimonial warrant |
spellingShingle |
Anonymity and testimonial warrant Matheson, David |
title_short |
Anonymity and testimonial warrant |
title_full |
Anonymity and testimonial warrant |
title_fullStr |
Anonymity and testimonial warrant |
title_full_unstemmed |
Anonymity and testimonial warrant |
title_sort |
Anonymity and testimonial warrant |
author |
Matheson, David |
author_facet |
Matheson, David |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Matheson, David |
description |
Reductionism as an approach to the epistemology of testimony places certain demands on the recipient of testimony that its competitor, antireductionism, does not. After laying out the two approaches and their respective demands on the recipient of testimony, I argue that reductionism also places certainanonymity-shedding demands on the testifier that antireductionism does not. The difficulty of deciding between the approaches leads to a worry about the extent to which the current state of affairs in epistemology can offer secureadvice on the sorts of anonymity constraints that a networked society should place on its testifiers. This worry can be mitigated, I further argue, upon recognition of the fact that the two approaches stand on common ground when it comes to cases of known testimonial conflict. |
publishDate |
2004 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2004-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14644 10.5007/%x |
url |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14644 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5007/%x |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14644/13391 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 David Matheson http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 David Matheson http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 8 No. 2 (2004); 213-231 Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 8 Núm. 2 (2004); 213-231 Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 8 n. 2 (2004); 213-231 1808-1711 1414-4247 reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) instacron:UFSC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
instacron_str |
UFSC |
institution |
UFSC |
reponame_str |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
collection |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
principia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br |
_version_ |
1789435108940316672 |