Criteria for Testimonial Knowledge: aren’t they too strict?

In my weekly article on “Western” philosophy, I discuss about the requisites for testimony. Reductionists (i.e., scholars who think that Linguistic Communication can be reduced to other instruments of knowledge, the usual candidates being memory and inference) tend to have higher requirements for Testimony, but so do also some Non-Reductionists. Do we agree in ending up with that little “sound” testimonial knowledge?

Comments and discussions are welcome. Be sure you are making a point and contributing to the discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *