What's the matter with epistemic circularity?

Philosophical Studies 171 (2):177-205 (2014)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
If the reliability of a source of testimony is open to question, it seems epistemically illegitimate to verify the source’s reliability by appealing to that source’s own testimony. Is this because it is illegitimate to trust a questionable source’s testimony on any matter whatsoever? Or is there a distinctive problem with appealing to the source’s testimony on the matter of that source’s own reliability? After distinguishing between two kinds of epistemically illegitimate circularity—bootstrapping and self-verification—I argue for a qualified version of the claim that there is nothing especially illegitimate about using a questionable source to evaluate its own reliability. Instead, it is illegitimate to appeal to a questionable source’s testimony on any matter whatsoever, with the matter of the source’s own reliability serving only as a special case.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BARWTM
Revision history
Archival date: 2013-11-12
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 36 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
The Evil Demon Inside.Silins, Nicholas

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2013-11-13

Total views
363 ( #6,907 of 37,965 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
19 ( #18,666 of 37,965 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.