Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:31:55.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TESTIMONY, RECOVERY AND PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY: A RESPONSE TO PEET

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2017

Alex Davies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to telling based views of testimony (TBVs), B has reason to believe that p when A tells B that p because A thereby takes public responsibility for B's subsequent belief that p. Andrew Peet presents a new argument against TBVs. He argues that insofar as A uses context-sensitive expressions to express p, A doesn't take public responsibility for B's belief that p. Since context-sensitivity is widespread, the kind of reason TBVs say we have to believe what we're told, is not widespread. Peet doesn't identify any problem with his own argument though he does attempt to limit its sceptical potential by identifying special contexts in which TBVs stand a chance of success. A more general defence of TBVs can be provided by showing Peet's argument to be unsound. I argue that Peet's argument is unsound because it requires us to wrongly suppose that speakers do far less labour than their audiences in context-sensitive linguistic communication. I aim to show why – in the context of the epistemology of testimony and the philosophy of language – it's important to recognize the labour that speakers can do, and so can be held responsible for not doing, in episodes of context-sensitive linguistic communication.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 18 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anscombe, E. 1957. Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fricker, E. 2006. ‘Second-hand Knowledge.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(3): 592–618.Google Scholar
Fricker, E. 2012. ‘Stating and Insinuating.’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 86(1): 61–94.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1963. Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. Toronto: Collier-Macmillan.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. 1974. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. 2012. ‘Epistemics in Action: Action Formation and Territories of Knowledge.’ Research on Language and Social Interaction, 45: 1–29.Google Scholar
Hinchman, E. 2005. ‘Telling as Inviting to Trust.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(3): 562–87.Google Scholar
Moran, R. 2005. ‘Getting Told and Being Believed.’ Philosophers’ Imprint, 5(5): 1–29.Google Scholar
Peet, A. 2015. ‘Testimony, Pragmatics, and Plausible Deniability.’ Episteme, 12(1): 29–51.Google Scholar
Peet, A. Forthcoming. ‘Testimonial Knowledge without Knowledge of What is Said.’ Pacific Philosophical Quarterly.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. 1984. ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.’ In Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, A. 1986. ‘Why do we Believe what we are Told?’ Ratio, 1: 69–88.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. 1974. ‘An Analysis of the Course of a Joke's Telling in Conversation.’ In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, pp. 337–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Terasaki, A. 2004. ‘Pre-Announcement Sequences in Conversation.’ In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, pp. 174–223. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar