Advertisement

Philosophical Studies

, Volume 172, Issue 9, pp 2371–2383 | Cite as

Modeling the social consequences of testimonial norms

  • Kevin J. S. Zollman
Article

Abstract

This paper approaches the problem of testimony from a new direction. Rather than focusing on the epistemic grounds for testimony, it considers the problem from the perspective of an individual who must choose whom to trust from a population of many would-be testifiers. A computer simulation is presented which illustrates that in many plausible situations, those who trust without attempting to judge the reliability of testifiers outperform those who attempt to seek out the more reliable members of the community. In so doing, it presents a novel defense for the credulist position that argues one should trust testimony without considering the underlying reliability of the testifier.

Keywords

Testimony Social epistemology Computer simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank an anonymous reviewer and audiences in Pittsburgh, Groningen, Munich, and Düsseldorf for helpful comments. This research was supported by National Science Foundation grants SES 1026586 and SES 1254291.

Supplementary material

11098_2014_416_MOESM1_ESM.nlogo (51 kb)
Simulation Code (NLOGO 51 kb)
11098_2014_416_MOESM2_ESM.qti (832 kb)
Simulation Results (QTI 832 kb)
11098_2014_416_MOESM3_ESM.qti (465 kb)
Simulation Results (QTI 464 kb)

References

  1. Burge, T. (1995). Content preservation. Philosophical Issues, 6, 271–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fricker, E. (1995). Telling and trusting : Reductionism and anti-reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. Mind, 104, 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gelfert, A. (2014). A critical introduction to testimony. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  5. Goldman, A. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldman, A. (2001). Experts: Which ones should you trust ? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goldman, A. (2011). Systems oriented social epistemology. In A. Goldman & D. Whitecomb (Eds.), Social epistemology: Essential readings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Golub, B., & Jackson, M. O. (2011). How homophily affects the speed of learning and best-response dynamics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(3), 1287–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2006). Truth and cognitive division of labor: First steps toward a computer aided social epistemology. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 9(3), 1–29.Google Scholar
  10. Hinchman, E. S. (2005). Telling as inviting to trust. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LXX(3), 562–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holme, P., & Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Nonequilibrium phase transition in the coevolution of networks and opinions. Physical Review E, 74(056108), 1–5.Google Scholar
  12. Insole, C. J. (2000). Seeing off the local threat to irreducible knowledge by testimony. The Philosophical Quarterly, 50(198), 44–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kadane, J. B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1982). A subjectivist view of calibration. American Statistician, 36, 240–255.Google Scholar
  14. Kahan, D. M., JenkinsSmith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lackey, J. (2010). Learning from words: Testimony as a source of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1981). Rational consensus in science and society: A philosophical and mathematical study. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pritchard, D. (2004). The epistemology of testimony. Philosophical Issues, 14, 326–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations