Testimony, credit, and blame

This paper examines ordinary people’s responses to Jennifer Lackey’s Chicago Visitor case. In particular it examines responses regarding the case from participants with Taiwanese backgrounds and US backgrounds. The Chicago Visitor case is one of the most influential cases in epistemology in recent y...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: RYAN, Shane, MI, Chienkuo Mi, MIZUMOTO, Masaharu
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2020
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3715
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.soss_research-4973
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.soss_research-49732023-01-19T07:54:03Z Testimony, credit, and blame RYAN, Shane MI, Chienkuo Mi MIZUMOTO, Masaharu This paper examines ordinary people’s responses to Jennifer Lackey’s Chicago Visitor case. In particular it examines responses regarding the case from participants with Taiwanese backgrounds and US backgrounds. The Chicago Visitor case is one of the most influential cases in epistemology in recent years and plays a significant role in a number of debates in epistemology. First, the case is used to suggest that the Credit View is mistaken. Second, the case seems to pose a problem for a virtue epistemological account of the nature of knowledge. Our paper explores these points in relation to our survey results, which show that participants believe that the protagonist in the case does have knowledge and that the protagonist deserves some credit for his true belief. Our aim in this paper, however, isn’t only to discover evidence bearing on the discussion of the Chicago Visitor case and cross cultural differences related to that case, we are also interested in what else the case might tell us about epistemic agency. For this reason we also asked participants to tell us to what extent they thought that the protagonist would be at fault in a case in which their belief turned out to be false. Here most of the participants found that the protagonist would indeed bear some fault in such circumstances. Our survey results also show, however, that participants of US background tend to be likely to attribute less fault to the testimonial recipient in bad testimonial cases, than their Taiwanese counterparts. More generally, we explore what the result regarding fault can tell us about epistemic agency. 2020-05-01T07:00:00Z text https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3715 info:doi/10.4324/9781003037774-5 Research Collection School of Social Sciences eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University ordinary people Jennifer Lackey Chicago Visitor case epistemology Credit View virtue epistemology knowledge survey results epistemic agency cross cultural differences fault testimonial recipient bad testimonial cases Epistemology
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic ordinary people
Jennifer Lackey
Chicago Visitor case
epistemology
Credit View
virtue epistemology
knowledge
survey results
epistemic agency
cross cultural differences
fault
testimonial recipient
bad testimonial cases
Epistemology
spellingShingle ordinary people
Jennifer Lackey
Chicago Visitor case
epistemology
Credit View
virtue epistemology
knowledge
survey results
epistemic agency
cross cultural differences
fault
testimonial recipient
bad testimonial cases
Epistemology
RYAN, Shane
MI, Chienkuo Mi
MIZUMOTO, Masaharu
Testimony, credit, and blame
description This paper examines ordinary people’s responses to Jennifer Lackey’s Chicago Visitor case. In particular it examines responses regarding the case from participants with Taiwanese backgrounds and US backgrounds. The Chicago Visitor case is one of the most influential cases in epistemology in recent years and plays a significant role in a number of debates in epistemology. First, the case is used to suggest that the Credit View is mistaken. Second, the case seems to pose a problem for a virtue epistemological account of the nature of knowledge. Our paper explores these points in relation to our survey results, which show that participants believe that the protagonist in the case does have knowledge and that the protagonist deserves some credit for his true belief. Our aim in this paper, however, isn’t only to discover evidence bearing on the discussion of the Chicago Visitor case and cross cultural differences related to that case, we are also interested in what else the case might tell us about epistemic agency. For this reason we also asked participants to tell us to what extent they thought that the protagonist would be at fault in a case in which their belief turned out to be false. Here most of the participants found that the protagonist would indeed bear some fault in such circumstances. Our survey results also show, however, that participants of US background tend to be likely to attribute less fault to the testimonial recipient in bad testimonial cases, than their Taiwanese counterparts. More generally, we explore what the result regarding fault can tell us about epistemic agency.
format text
author RYAN, Shane
MI, Chienkuo Mi
MIZUMOTO, Masaharu
author_facet RYAN, Shane
MI, Chienkuo Mi
MIZUMOTO, Masaharu
author_sort RYAN, Shane
title Testimony, credit, and blame
title_short Testimony, credit, and blame
title_full Testimony, credit, and blame
title_fullStr Testimony, credit, and blame
title_full_unstemmed Testimony, credit, and blame
title_sort testimony, credit, and blame
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2020
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3715
_version_ 1770576464162324480