Submissions Of Evidence, And Cognition

The dissertation studies the problems of testimony in epistemology and philosophy of linguistic, it is constituted three parts: Part One, Overviews, includes Chapter One to Three. The first Chapter, What is Testimony? introduces concept and role of testimony as well as the possible causes for ignorance of testimony. Second Chapter, Historical explore, draws three lines for testimony: fundamental negation from Plato to Locke, Humian recognition, and Reidian fundamentalism. Chapter Three, review of contemporary Western studies, provides research materials and figures in four debates.Part Two, the Character and justification of testimony, is constituted by five chapters. Chapter Four, the definition, scope and limits of testimony, deepens the concept of testimony described in Chapter One. Three debates are discussed from Chapter Four to Eight. The first one discussed in Chapter five is the debate between inferetialism and non-inferentialism which focus on how testimonial knowledge formed. Second is debate on how to justify testimony, by fundamentalism (Chapter Six) or by reductionism (Chapter seven). Third one is debate on how knowledge is transmitted, which is discussed in Chapter Eight.The three debates are formulated in general theory of testimonial epistemology, while the fourth debate originated from scientific testimony which constitute of Part Three Scientific expert and Testimonial Practice. Chapter ten discuss the fourth debate, which evidence novice should depend on in choosing experts. Chapter Nine, expert testimony and trust in scientific practice, studies two relative issues. Whether or not trusting expertise is blindness? And trust based on epistemic or ethic? Chapter eleven figures concepts of testimonial evidence and testifying by two cases in the history of mathematics.The debate between reductionism and fundamentalism is central to all controversies. However, there are not so much opposite in their views such as they claimed. They are seem two poles in level of meta-justification, but are fuse in empirical level.Both reductionism and fundamentalism are deferent versions of individual epistemology. Corresponding to three historical lines, we differentiate three differrent versions of individual epistemology: Lockeian individualism, Humian individualism and Reidian individualism.Both reductionism and fundamentalism limit their discussion in ideal texture between speaker and hearer, overlooking the social and natural character of testimony practice. Epistemology needs remodel by socializing and naturalizing, "social" as foundation of epistemology, and human naturalized epistemic as core of epistemology. Socializing and naturalizing are harmony, for social epistemic is natural one, toward naturalism is only way to get rid of epistemic plights.