Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony
Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based be...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Graham, Peter J. [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2016 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Synthese - Springer Netherlands, 1936, 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:195 ; year:2016 ; number:7 ; day:16 ; month:06 ; pages:3013-3033 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
OLC2037258526 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | OLC2037258526 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230504054821.0 | ||
007 | tu | ||
008 | 200819s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2037258526 | ||
035 | |a (DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
082 | 0 | 4 | |a 400 |a 150 |a 300 |q VZ |
084 | |a 5,2 |a 7,11 |a 11 |a 5,1 |2 ssgn | ||
084 | |a LING |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
100 | 1 | |a Graham, Peter J. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony |
264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 | ||
520 | |a Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Epistemology of testimony | |
650 | 4 | |a Testimonial justification | |
650 | 4 | |a Childhood testimony | |
650 | 4 | |a Selective trust | |
650 | 4 | |a Critical reason | |
650 | 4 | |a Defeaters | |
650 | 4 | |a Jennifer Lackey | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Synthese |d Springer Netherlands, 1936 |g 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 |w (DE-627)129479187 |w (DE-600)204075-X |w (DE-576)014860856 |x 0039-7857 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:195 |g year:2016 |g number:7 |g day:16 |g month:06 |g pages:3013-3033 |
856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
912 | |a FID-LING | ||
912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHY | ||
912 | |a SSG-OLC-CHE | ||
912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_72 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4027 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4028 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 195 |j 2016 |e 7 |b 16 |c 06 |h 3013-3033 |
author_variant |
p j g pj pjg |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:00397857:2016----::omltnrdcinsaotetmnawratntehleg |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2016 |
publishDate |
2016 |
allfields |
10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y doi (DE-627)OLC2037258526 (DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 150 300 VZ 5,2 7,11 11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid Graham, Peter J. verfasserin aut Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. Epistemology of testimony Testimonial justification Childhood testimony Selective trust Critical reason Defeaters Jennifer Lackey Enthalten in Synthese Springer Netherlands, 1936 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 (DE-627)129479187 (DE-600)204075-X (DE-576)014860856 0039-7857 nnns volume:195 year:2016 number:7 day:16 month:06 pages:3013-3033 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 AR 195 2016 7 16 06 3013-3033 |
spelling |
10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y doi (DE-627)OLC2037258526 (DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 150 300 VZ 5,2 7,11 11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid Graham, Peter J. verfasserin aut Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. Epistemology of testimony Testimonial justification Childhood testimony Selective trust Critical reason Defeaters Jennifer Lackey Enthalten in Synthese Springer Netherlands, 1936 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 (DE-627)129479187 (DE-600)204075-X (DE-576)014860856 0039-7857 nnns volume:195 year:2016 number:7 day:16 month:06 pages:3013-3033 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 AR 195 2016 7 16 06 3013-3033 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y doi (DE-627)OLC2037258526 (DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 150 300 VZ 5,2 7,11 11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid Graham, Peter J. verfasserin aut Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. Epistemology of testimony Testimonial justification Childhood testimony Selective trust Critical reason Defeaters Jennifer Lackey Enthalten in Synthese Springer Netherlands, 1936 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 (DE-627)129479187 (DE-600)204075-X (DE-576)014860856 0039-7857 nnns volume:195 year:2016 number:7 day:16 month:06 pages:3013-3033 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 AR 195 2016 7 16 06 3013-3033 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y doi (DE-627)OLC2037258526 (DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 150 300 VZ 5,2 7,11 11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid Graham, Peter J. verfasserin aut Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. Epistemology of testimony Testimonial justification Childhood testimony Selective trust Critical reason Defeaters Jennifer Lackey Enthalten in Synthese Springer Netherlands, 1936 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 (DE-627)129479187 (DE-600)204075-X (DE-576)014860856 0039-7857 nnns volume:195 year:2016 number:7 day:16 month:06 pages:3013-3033 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 AR 195 2016 7 16 06 3013-3033 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y doi (DE-627)OLC2037258526 (DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 150 300 VZ 5,2 7,11 11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid Graham, Peter J. verfasserin aut Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony 2016 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. Epistemology of testimony Testimonial justification Childhood testimony Selective trust Critical reason Defeaters Jennifer Lackey Enthalten in Synthese Springer Netherlands, 1936 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 (DE-627)129479187 (DE-600)204075-X (DE-576)014860856 0039-7857 nnns volume:195 year:2016 number:7 day:16 month:06 pages:3013-3033 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 AR 195 2016 7 16 06 3013-3033 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in Synthese 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 volume:195 year:2016 number:7 day:16 month:06 pages:3013-3033 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in Synthese 195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033 volume:195 year:2016 number:7 day:16 month:06 pages:3013-3033 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Epistemology of testimony Testimonial justification Childhood testimony Selective trust Critical reason Defeaters Jennifer Lackey |
dewey-raw |
400 |
isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
container_title |
Synthese |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Graham, Peter J. @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-06-16T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
129479187 |
dewey-sort |
3400 |
id |
OLC2037258526 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2037258526</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504054821.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2037258526</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5,2</subfield><subfield code="a">7,11</subfield><subfield code="a">11</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Graham, Peter J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Epistemology of testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Testimonial justification</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Childhood testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Selective trust</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Critical reason</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Defeaters</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Jennifer Lackey</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Synthese</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1936</subfield><subfield code="g">195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129479187</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)204075-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014860856</subfield><subfield code="x">0039-7857</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:195</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:7</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3013-3033</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-CHE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_72</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4028</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">195</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">7</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield><subfield code="h">3013-3033</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Graham, Peter J. |
spellingShingle |
Graham, Peter J. ddc 400 ssgn 5,2 fid LING misc Epistemology of testimony misc Testimonial justification misc Childhood testimony misc Selective trust misc Critical reason misc Defeaters misc Jennifer Lackey Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony |
authorStr |
Graham, Peter J. |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)129479187 |
format |
Article |
dewey-ones |
400 - Language 150 - Psychology 300 - Social sciences |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut |
collection |
OLC |
remote_str |
false |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
0039-7857 |
topic_title |
400 150 300 VZ 5,2 7,11 11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony Epistemology of testimony Testimonial justification Childhood testimony Selective trust Critical reason Defeaters Jennifer Lackey |
topic |
ddc 400 ssgn 5,2 fid LING misc Epistemology of testimony misc Testimonial justification misc Childhood testimony misc Selective trust misc Critical reason misc Defeaters misc Jennifer Lackey |
topic_unstemmed |
ddc 400 ssgn 5,2 fid LING misc Epistemology of testimony misc Testimonial justification misc Childhood testimony misc Selective trust misc Critical reason misc Defeaters misc Jennifer Lackey |
topic_browse |
ddc 400 ssgn 5,2 fid LING misc Epistemology of testimony misc Testimonial justification misc Childhood testimony misc Selective trust misc Critical reason misc Defeaters misc Jennifer Lackey |
format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
hierarchy_parent_title |
Synthese |
hierarchy_parent_id |
129479187 |
dewey-tens |
400 - Language 150 - Psychology 300 - Social sciences, sociology & anthropology |
hierarchy_top_title |
Synthese |
isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)129479187 (DE-600)204075-X (DE-576)014860856 |
title |
Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2037258526 (DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p |
title_full |
Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony |
author_sort |
Graham, Peter J. |
journal |
Synthese |
journalStr |
Synthese |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
false |
dewey-hundreds |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy & psychology 300 - Social sciences |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2016 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
container_start_page |
3013 |
author_browse |
Graham, Peter J. |
container_volume |
195 |
class |
400 150 300 VZ 5,2 7,11 11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid |
format_se |
Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Graham, Peter J. |
doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y |
dewey-full |
400 150 300 |
title_sort |
formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony |
title_auth |
Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony |
abstract |
Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 |
abstractGer |
Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 |
abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism. © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016 |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING SSG-OLC-PHY SSG-OLC-CHE SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_72 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4027 GBV_ILN_4028 |
container_issue |
7 |
title_short |
Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y |
remote_bool |
false |
ppnlink |
129479187 |
mediatype_str_mv |
n |
isOA_txt |
false |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y |
up_date |
2024-07-03T14:27:45.258Z |
_version_ |
1803568404507918336 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2037258526</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230504054821.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2016 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2037258526</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11229-016-1140-y-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="a">300</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">5,2</subfield><subfield code="a">7,11</subfield><subfield code="a">11</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Graham, Peter J.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Formulating reductionism about testimonial warrant and the challenge from childhood testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract The case of very young children is a test case for the plausibility of reductionism about testimonial warrant. Reductionism requires reductive reasons, reductively justified and actively deployed for testimonial justification. Though nascent language-users enjoy warranted testimony based beliefs, they do not meet these three reductionist demands. This paper clearly formulates reductionism and the infant/child objection. Two rejoinders are discussed: an influential conceptual argument from Jennifer Lackey’s paper “Testimony and the Infant/Child Objection” and the growing empirical evidence from developmental psychology on selective trust in children. Neither Lackey’s argument nor the empirical evidence vindicate reductionism.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Epistemology of testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Testimonial justification</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Childhood testimony</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Selective trust</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Critical reason</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Defeaters</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Jennifer Lackey</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Synthese</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1936</subfield><subfield code="g">195(2016), 7 vom: 16. Juni, Seite 3013-3033</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)129479187</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)204075-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)014860856</subfield><subfield code="x">0039-7857</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:195</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:7</subfield><subfield code="g">day:16</subfield><subfield code="g">month:06</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3013-3033</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1140-y</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHY</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-CHE</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_72</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4027</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4028</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">195</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">7</subfield><subfield code="b">16</subfield><subfield code="c">06</subfield><subfield code="h">3013-3033</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.400012 |