Join us for a talk by Tim Kenyon on Accepting Testimony and Believing Testimony on January 31st, from 3:30-5:00 in Hagey Hall 373.
A social will be held prior to the talk in Hagey Hall 335, from 2:30-3:30.
Abstract: I argue that one of the most influential statements of the anti-reductionist entitlement to accept testimony, due to Tyler Burge, is ill-formed. Re-stating this Acceptance Principle for Testimony more clearly is an opportunity to explain why it is, by turns, both appealing and trivial-seeming. One promising resolution to this division is to recruit, clean up, and build upon some distinctions from the wider literature on accepting testimony or assertion, as distinct from believing it. Using examples and some amateur theatre, I suggest that anti-reductionism is most plausible for a non-epistemic notion of accepting testimony. Winners: anti-reductionists who don’t much care about entitlement epistemology, Dummett, reductionists. Losers: anti-reductionists who are all about entitlement epistemology, Dummett,probably me.
200 University Avenue West
Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1