Quick questions on Testimony and knowledge explained: H2 Knowledge and Inquiry

Reductionism holds that the justification for accepting testimony reduces to the hearer's own perception and inductive reasoning. From experience we learn that people are usually reliable on ordinary matters, that reports tend to fit together, and that speakers can be checked. So accepting testimony is justified just when, and because, we have independent evidence of the source's reliability. On this view testimony is not a basic source; its authority is borrowed from induction.

Anti-reductionism holds that we have a default entitlement to believe what we are told, unless there is a specific reason for doubt. Testimony is then a basic source of knowledge, on a par with perception and memory, not parasitic on induction. The motivation is developmental and practical: a child accepts an enormous body of testimony long before gathering inductive evidence of reliability, and adults could not function if each report had to be independently certified.

Memory is best understood as a preservative source rather than a generative one. It does not create new knowledge but retains knowledge first gained by perception, reason or testimony. Its epistemic role is to carry justification forward through time, and like the other sources it is fallible (memories can be reconstructed or false), so it too requires a measure of critical trust.

Distinguish reductionist and anti-reductionist accounts of testimonial justification. [6 marks]

Give one objection to reductionism and one to anti-reductionism about testimony. [8 marks]

Explain why memory is best regarded as a preservative rather than a generative source of knowledge. [6 marks]