The cognitive importance of testimony

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Davies, Jim
Data de Publicação: 2013
Outros Autores: Matheson, David
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Principia (Florianópolis. Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n2p297
Resumo: As a belief source, testimony has long been held by theorists of the mind to play a deeply important role in human cognition. It is unclear, however, just why testimony has been afforded such cognitive importance. We distinguish three suggestions on the matter: the number claim, which takes testimony’s cognitive importance to be a function of the number of beliefs it typically yields, relative to other belief sources; the reliability claim, which ties the importance of testimony to its relative truth-conduciveness; and the scope claim, according to which testimony’s importance is a function of its relative representational power, non-numerically conceived. After laying out these three suggestions, we go on to argue that there is little hope of grounding testimony’s cognitive importance in either the number claim or the reliability claim. We conclude with a tentative exploration of the basis and plausibility of the scope claim.
id UFSC-5_f99703b767d41d51010ad74d76939f2c
oai_identifier_str oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/20821
network_acronym_str UFSC-5
network_name_str Principia (Florianópolis. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling The cognitive importance of testimonyThe cognitive importance of testimonyAs a belief source, testimony has long been held by theorists of the mind to play a deeply important role in human cognition. It is unclear, however, just why testimony has been afforded such cognitive importance. We distinguish three suggestions on the matter: the number claim, which takes testimony’s cognitive importance to be a function of the number of beliefs it typically yields, relative to other belief sources; the reliability claim, which ties the importance of testimony to its relative truth-conduciveness; and the scope claim, according to which testimony’s importance is a function of its relative representational power, non-numerically conceived. After laying out these three suggestions, we go on to argue that there is little hope of grounding testimony’s cognitive importance in either the number claim or the reliability claim. We conclude with a tentative exploration of the basis and plausibility of the scope claim.Os teóricos da mente têm sustentado por longo tempo que o testemunho, como fonte de crença, desempenha um papel fundamentalmente importante na cognição humana. Não está claro, contudo, exatamente por que o testemunho recebeu tal importância cognitiva. Distinguimos três sugestões sobre essa questão: a asserção do número, que considera que a importância cognitiva do testemunho é função do número de crenças que ele geralmente produz relativamente a outras fontes de crença; a afirmação de confiabilidade, que liga a importância do testemunho à sua condutibilidade à verdade; e a afirmação de escopo, segundo a qual a importância do testemunho é função de seu poder representacional relativo, concebido de maneira não numérica. Depois de apresentarmos essas três sugestões, argumentamos que há pouca esperança de fundamentarmos a importância cognitiva do testemunho ou na asserção do número ou na asserção da confiabilidade. Concluímos com uma exploração provisória da base e da plausibilidade da afirmação de escopo.Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC2013-02-18info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n2p29710.5007/1808-1711.2012v16n2p297Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 16 No. 2 (2012); 297-318Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 16 Núm. 2 (2012); 297-318Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 16 n. 2 (2012); 297-3181808-17111414-4247reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n2p297/24096Copyright (c) 2021 Jim Davies, David Mathesoninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessDavies, JimMatheson, David2019-09-12T11:50:31Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/20821Revistahttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principiaPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/oaiprincipia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br1808-17111414-4247opendoar:2019-09-12T11:50:31Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The cognitive importance of testimony
The cognitive importance of testimony
title The cognitive importance of testimony
spellingShingle The cognitive importance of testimony
Davies, Jim
title_short The cognitive importance of testimony
title_full The cognitive importance of testimony
title_fullStr The cognitive importance of testimony
title_full_unstemmed The cognitive importance of testimony
title_sort The cognitive importance of testimony
author Davies, Jim
author_facet Davies, Jim
Matheson, David
author_role author
author2 Matheson, David
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Davies, Jim
Matheson, David
description As a belief source, testimony has long been held by theorists of the mind to play a deeply important role in human cognition. It is unclear, however, just why testimony has been afforded such cognitive importance. We distinguish three suggestions on the matter: the number claim, which takes testimony’s cognitive importance to be a function of the number of beliefs it typically yields, relative to other belief sources; the reliability claim, which ties the importance of testimony to its relative truth-conduciveness; and the scope claim, according to which testimony’s importance is a function of its relative representational power, non-numerically conceived. After laying out these three suggestions, we go on to argue that there is little hope of grounding testimony’s cognitive importance in either the number claim or the reliability claim. We conclude with a tentative exploration of the basis and plausibility of the scope claim.
publishDate 2013
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2013-02-18
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/1808-1711.2012v16n2p297
10.5007/1808-1711.2012v16n2p297
url https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n2p297
identifier_str_mv 10.5007/1808-1711.2012v16n2p297
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n2p297/24096
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Jim Davies, David Matheson
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2021 Jim Davies, David Matheson
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. 16 No. 2 (2012); 297-318
Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 16 Núm. 2 (2012); 297-318
Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 16 n. 2 (2012); 297-318
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_ 1789435111375110144