epistemic internalism and testimonial justification jonathan egeland Jonathan.egeland.harouny@philosophy.su.se abstract According to epistemic internalists, facts about justication supervene upon one's internal reasons for believing certain propositions. Epistemic externalists, on the other hand, deny this. More specically, externalists think that the supervenience base of justication isn't exhausted by one's internal reasons for believing certain propositions. In the last decade, the internalism–externalism debate has made its mark on the epistemology of testimony. The proponent of internalism about the epistemology of testimony claims that a hearer's testimonial justication for believing that p supervenes upon his internal reasons for thinking that the speaker's testimony that p is true. Recently, however, several objections have been raised against this view. In this paper, I present an argument providing intuitive support for internalism about the epistemology of testimony. Moreover, I also defend the argument against three recent objections offered by Stephen Wright in a couple of recent papers. The upshot of my discussion is that external conditions do make an epistemic difference when it comes to our testimonial beliefs, but that they cannot make any difference with respect to their justicatory status – i.e., they are justicationally irrelevant. 1. internalism and externalism about testimonial justification Epistemic internalists claim that facts about justication depend upon one's internal reasons. The traditional way of unpacking the notion of internal reasons is to say that one's internal reasons are one's a priori accessible reasons – where a priori is used in the narrow or traditional sense that a condition is a priori just in case it doesn't depend on any of the sense modalities.1 Thus, the modes of a priori accessibility include not only reection and reasoning, but also introspection and other cognitive mechanisms with an experiential aspect. And, in this way, internalists emphasize the epistemic importance of one's subjective point of view on the world. Epistemic externalists, on the other hand, deny this. More specically, they deny that only internal or a priori accessible reasons can have justicatory relevance. Instead, they think that facts about reliability, factive mental states, or other conditions that are external to one's subjective point of view can make a justicatory difference. 1 For a discussion of the distinction between narrow and broad notions of the a priori, see Casullo (2003: Ch. 2). Episteme (2018) page 1 of 17 © Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/epi.2018.48 episteme 1of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms The internalism–externalism debate has recently made its mark on the epistemology of testimony. Consider, for example, someone telling you that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is the author of Sherlock Holmes, or that the New York Public Library has more than 50 million items. A signicant number of the beliefs we hold come from assertions like these.2 Assertions present propositions that the speaker represents as being true, and that a hearer under the right conditions can get knowledge or justied beliefs from. The epistemology of testimony is about how we should evaluate such beliefs under different conditions. According to the internalist about testimonial justication, the following thesis is true: TJ Internalism: A hearer's testimonial justication for believing that p supervenes upon his internal reasons for thinking that the speaker's testimony that p is true.3 TJ internalists thus think that testimonial justication has its primary source in the hearer, rather than the speaker. Moreover, as formulated above, TJ internalism entails the following thesis about the justicatory status of internal duplicates: Duplicates: If any two hearers are the same with respect to their internal reasons for thinking that a speaker's testimony that p is true, then they are the same with respect to testimonial justication for believing that p. Externalists about testimonial justication, however, reject TJ internalism, instead claiming that conditions that are external to the hearer's subjective point of view can make a difference with respect to his testimonial justication.4 In this paper, I will argue for TJ internalism and defend it against recent objections. First, I will present an argument providing intuitive support for the view that only internal reasons can make a difference with respect to testimonial justication. Having thus motivated TJ internalism, I will defend it against three objections recently offered by Stephen Wright.5 The upshot of my discussion will be that externalist conditions do make an epistemic difference when it comes to our testimonial beliefs, but that they cannot make any difference with respect to their justicatory status – i.e., they are justicationally irrelevant. This is how the paper is structured. Section 2 presents an argument in favor of TJ internalism. Sections 3, 4, and 5 respond to three objections recently offered by Wright. Section 6 comments on Wright's criticism of Jennifer Lackey, arguing that he either must accept TJ internalism or an externalist position similar to Lackey's. Section 7 concludes. 2 I will only focus what Coady (1992) calls natural testimony. Natural testimony, unlike formal testimony which can be found in, for example, the courtroom, "is to be encountered in such everyday circumstances as exhibit the 'social operations of mind': giving someone directions to the post ofce, reporting what happened in an accident, saying that, yes, you have seen a child answering to that description, telling someone the result of the last race of the last cricket score" (Coady 1992: 38). 3 Proponents of TJ internalism include Fricker (1994, 2006), Fumerton (2006), Lehrer (2006), and Madison (2016). Moreover, there are different views about what having internal reasons for considering the speaker's testimony true amounts to. Some, like Lyons (1997), Adler (2002), and Shogenji (2006), believe that the reasons must support the general trustworthiness of the testier, while others, like Fricker (1994, 1995), Malmgren (2006), and Lipton (2007), believe that the reasons must support the testier's trustworthiness in the particular case in question. 4 Proponents of TJ externalism include Lackey (2008), Sosa (2010), Faulkner (2011), andWright (2016a, b). 5 Wright (2016a, 2016b) actually offers arguments for externalism about testimonial justication, but for the present purpose his arguments can be formulated as objections to the argument of this text without omitting any of his central points. jonathan egeland 2 epistemeof use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms 2. the argument I will begin by presenting a scenario that will serve as the basis for an argument for TJ internalism. The scenario considers a pair of epistemic agents that are duplicates with respect to their internal reasons, but that differ with respect to external conditions, such as reliability and truth. And by evaluating the epistemic positions of both agents, the scenario provides the intuitive basis for an inference to the best explanation saying that the character of justication is epistemically internal. The argument's general structure is familiar from the internalism-externalism debate,6 but has had less impact on the epistemology of testimony.7 The scenario I will consider is as follows. Trustworthy and Untrustworthy College Consider two ten-year-old epistemic agents, Barry and Larry, who are duplicates with respect to their internal reasons. Barry and Larry go to different, but subjectively indistinguishable, boarding schools. Barry goes to Trustworthy College and Larry to Untrustworthy College. Both Trustworthy College and Untrustworthy College are devoted to teaching its students how things really are with respect to traditional core subjects, like history and geography. The professors at the schools try their best to be honest and trustworthy, and they never intend to deceive their students. Moreover, both schools teach its students the same things; which is to say that the propositional content of the professors' testimonies at the two schools are the same. However, the schools are situated in different environments. In the environment in which Trustworthy College is situated, the propositional content of the professors' testimonies almost always turn out to be true. But in the environment in which Untrustworthy College is situated, the propositional content of the professors' testimonies usually turn out to be false. As a consequence, most of Barry's testimonial beliefs are true, whereas most of Larry's testimonial beliefs are false. However, despite the difference in their track records, the professors at the two schools seem to be, from the students' subjective point of view, equally trustworthy; they are all regarded as knowledgeable and wellinformed with respect to their respective areas of expertise. Now, let's evaluate Barry and Larry's epistemic positions. First, it is clear that there is a difference between them. Whereas Barry's testimonial beliefs are highly reliable and almost all true, Larry's testimonial beliefs are generally unreliable. When Barry forms beliefs based on the testimonies of his professors, his beliefs represent his environment in a truth-conducive manner. But when Larry does the same, his beliefs usually misrepresent his environment. Following a recent trend in epistemology, we can dene epistemic entitlement as a condition that (primarily) turns on the reliability or truth-conduciveness of one's doxastic dispositions in one's normal environment.8 A natural way of conceptualizing the difference between Barry and Larry's epistemic positions is then to say that Barry's beliefs are entitled, whereas Larry's beliefs either are entitled to a much lower degree or, even worse, not entitled at all. A second difference between Barry and Larry is that Barry appears to get a lot of knowledge by relying on the testimonies of his professors. The professors at Trustworthy College undoubtedly know a lot about their respective areas of expertise. And the internal reasons Barry has for trusting his professors appear to facilitate 6 The locus classicus being Lehrer and Cohen's (1983) New Evil Demon Problem for reliabilism. 7 A notable exception is Gerken (2013). 8 See, e.g., Burge (2003), Graham (2010), and Gerken (2013). epistemic internalism and testimonial justif ication episteme 3of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms transmission of much of this knowledge, via their testimonies, to him. Larry, on the other hand, appears to get very little knowledge by relying on the testimonies of his professors – even when what they say actually turns out to be true. The professors at Untrustworthy College are simply too unreliable and insensitive with respect to the facts about their (so-called) areas of expertise. Following Alvin Plantinga (1993), we can dene epistemic warrant as the condition(s) that turns true belief into knowledge.9 Another natural way of conceptualizing the difference between Barry and Larry's epistemic positions is then to say that Barry's beliefs (often) are warranted, whereas Larry's beliefs usually aren't. However, despite the differences in their epistemic positions, there also seems to be something they have in common that speaks in favor of them. Both Barry and Larry's testimonial beliefs are supported by their internal reasons, and, as a consequence, they appear to be equally justied. After all, as far as the students are concerned, the schools are indistinguishable in all the relevant ways. More specically, from the students' perspective, the professors at Untrustworthy College are no less trustworthy than the professors at Trustworthy College. And since the apparent trustworthiness of the professors at Trustworthy College seems to justify their students' testimonial beliefs, so does the apparent trustworthiness of the professors at Untrustworthy College seem to justify their students' testimonial beliefs. Indeed, despite the differences in entitlement and warrant, it seems that the justicatory status of Barry and Larry's testimonial beliefs are the same as long as we hold xed their internal reasons. And the best explanation for why this should be so is that the facts about which propositions one has testimonial justication to believe, and also the degree to which one has testimonial justication to believe them, supervene upon one's internal reasons.10 By abductive reasoning we can therefore conclude that TJ internalism is true. To further support this argument, consider a similar scenario, but where Barry is transported from Trustworthy College to Untrustworthy College in the middle of the night while he is fast asleep. Unbeknown to himself, when Barry wakes up he nds himself at Untrustworthy College. Moreover, since the two schools are, from the students' point of view, indistinguishable, Barry continues to believe that he is at Trustworthy College; as far as he can tell, there is nothing indicating that he isn't or that his judgment is compromised. However, after a certain amount of time, Untrustworthy College becomes Barry's new normal environment.11 As a result, the new (testimonial) beliefs he forms by relying on the testimonies of his professors are no longer reliable or truth-conducive. Although his new testimonial beliefs appear to be just as true as his earlier ones, most of them are in fact false. Now, it is quite clear that Barry's new testimonial beliefs, in contrast to his earlier ones, neither are warranted nor entitled (to the same degree); his doxastic dispositions are simply not reliable or sensitive enough with respect to the facts about his new environment. However, his new testimonial beliefs appear to be just as justied as his earlier ones. After 9 Other epistemologists often use warrant as more or less synonymous with justication. However, for the present purpose, it will be useful to keep the notions separate. 10 Internalists take it to be the best explanation because it is the explanation that is most virtuous. For example, it is very simple, and it provides a unied explanation that doesn't only account for the Trustworthy and Untrustworthy College scenario, but also has the power to generalize to other scenarios as well. 11 For more on the notion of one's normal environment, see Gerken (2013: 543–4). jonathan egeland 4 epistemeof use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms all, for all that he, or anyone else in his epistemic position, knows, Barry still nds himself at Trustworthy College where the professors are trustworthy. So, once again, it appears that the justicatory status of his testimonial beliefs turns on his internal reasons for believing that what the professors say is true. In order to see this more clearly, it is enough to point out that Barry in the second scenario has gone from the same position that he was in in the rst scenario to the position that Larry was in. Moreover, according to Duplicates, which follows from TJ internalism, all internal duplicates are justicatory duplicates. And since Barry and Larry are internal duplicates, the testimonial beliefs Barry acquires at Untrustworthy College are no less justied than those he acquired at Trustworthy College. TJ Internalism thus appears to provide a simple and natural – indeed, I claim, the best – explanation for the intuitions elicited by the scenarios above. However, scenarios like these and the arguments they support are not without their critics. In a couple of recent papers, Wright has presented three objections with the purpose of undermining TJ internalism. In the next three sections, I will defend the argument above against them.12 3. the objection from lack of warrant The rst two objections have also been responded to by Brent Madison (2016). For that reason, I will not spend too much time defending my argument against them. However, since I suspect that many externalists about testimonial justication share some of the concerns that Wright's rst two objections raise when it comes to TJ internalism, it will be useful to demonstrate why they fail to undermine it. Plausibly, there exists some sort of necessary connection between justication and knowledge.13 According to Wright (2016b: 75), "justication is that which puts someone in a position to know things."Without providing us with any more detail, this presumably means that justication is warrant – i.e., it is whatever condition(s) that is required in order to turn true belief into knowledge.14 Now, with this claim in place, Wright considers a couple of scenarios similar to Trustworthy and Untrustworthy College – one of which is inspired by Frederick Schmitt (1999), and the other being Alvin Goldman's (1976) Fake Barns scenario – and argues, as I also did above, that Barry and Larry's epistemic positions 12 Externalists have offered many different responses to the traditional internalist argument that relies on intuitions elicited by Lehrer and Cohen's New Evil Demon Scenario. Although these responses cannot be ignored, they will not be the focus of this paper. The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, they have been responded to in detailed manners before (see, e.g., Littlejohn (2012: Introduction); and Egeland (Forthcoming)); and secondly, I think the more novel externalists responses, like those of Wright, deserve their own hearing. 13 However, no philosophical position is immune from dissent. For example, Alston (1989) and Foley (1993) deny that justication is necessary for knowledge. 14 Indeed, this is what Wright appears to have in mind. He makes the statement above just after discussing Goldman's (1976) Fake Barns scenario, in which Henry (the person driving in fake barns country) fails to know that the barn he's seeing is real. And, as Wright makes clear, it is "in the same way" that Henry's true belief that the particular barn he's looking at is real fails to constitute knowledge that it also fails to be justied. See Wright (2016b: 75–6). It is for this reason that I think Wright's position plausibly can be reconstructed as saying that justication is Plantinga-warrant. epistemic internalism and testimonial justif ication episteme 5of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms differ insofar as it is only Barry's testimonial beliefs that are warranted; that is, it is only he who is in a position to know that the contents of his professors' testimonies are true. And since warrant and justication is the same epistemic property, it therefore follows that only Barry has testimonial justication for his beliefs – despite the fact that Barry and Larry are stipulated to be duplicates with respect to their internal reasons. Hence, since Duplicates, which follows from TJ internalism, is false, so is TJ internalism. There is, however, a problem with this particular objection. Without providing any motivation for his claim that justication is warrant, the idea that Barry's testimonial beliefs are justied whereas Larry's aren't because only Barry's testimonial beliefs are warranted begs the question against the proponent of TJ internalism. The reason is simply that Wright assumes, without argument, that justication is an externalist notion (i.e., that it is the same as warrant).15 But the internalist can of course adopt a different theory of justication, one that doesn't presuppose the necessity of any externalist conditions. Indeed, not only is the internalist free to adopt an alternative view of justication, but there are also strong reasons for why he shouldn't adopt Wright's view. For example, by claiming that justication is warrant, Wright is committed to the view that justied true belief is sufcient for knowledge. However, as Madison (2016: 747) rightfully points out, in the aftermath of Edmund Gettier's (1963) counterexamples, it is clear that the tripartite analysis of knowledge intuitively fails.16 We therefore have good reason to reject Wright's claim that justication is warrant, and with it the claim that Barry and Larry differ in terms of testimonial justication too. 4. the objection from lack of epistemic value However, according to Wright, responding to the objection from lack of warrant in the manner above by denying that justication is warrant reveals another problem with TJ internalism. In the same paper, he tells us that maintaining that Barry and Larry's testimonial beliefs are equally justied despite their difference in warrant "amounts to a serious concession from the internalist, however, since it devalues justication, as internalists conceive of it, detaching it from knowledge" (Wright 2016b: 73, fn 10). In other words, Wright thinks that if we deny that justication is warrant, thereby also denying that justication, together with true belief, is sufcient for knowledge, justication appears to lose the epistemic value that we (intuitively) want to accord it. After all, why should we care more about having justied true beliefs than mere true beliefs if the former isn't sufcient for knowledge? As far as I can see, there is only one reason why one might think that denying Wright's view of justication automatically devalues it, and it is as follows. If you are a monist 15 If my reconstruction of Wright position somehow misses its mark, I still think his objection ends up begging the question insofar as it begins from the assumption that "justication is that which puts someone in a position to know," which clearly is an externalist condition. 16 An obvious reply Wright could make is of course that by stipulating that justication is warrant, the traditional justied true belief analysis of knowledge becomes true since warranted true belief by denition is sufcient for knowledge. However, a worry with this reply is that it doesn't really get at what we want to say that the notion of justication involves. The view under consideration can thus avoid Gettier cases, but only by trading in our traditional concept of justication for a rather uninteresting one. jonathan egeland 6 epistemeof use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms about epistemic value, thinking that only knowledge is of intrinsic epistemic importance, then justication might appear to become trivial unless it is sufcient for turning true belief into knowledge. Then, and only then, does justication have instrumental epistemic value as a means to knowledge – the only epistemic property that is valuable in and of itself – or so it might be argued.17 However, there are a couple of problems with this kind of objection. First, the internalist isn't committed to the view that the value of epistemic justication is exhausted by the fact that it is a means to knowledge. Alternatively, the internalist can argue that justication either has instrumental value insofar as it is means to satisfying some other (epistemic) property besides knowledge, or that it has value in and of itself. And, moreover, both these views can be found in the literature. Let me give a couple of examples. On the one hand, Declan Smithies (2015) supports the rst kind of view and argues that justication has instrumental value insofar as it is means to having beliefs that are stable under rational reection, and that being able to have beliefs that are stable under rational reection is the sine qua non of being a person, which is of intrinsic value. On the other hand, Madison (2017) supports the second kind of view and argues, using Keith Lehrer and Stewart Cohen's (1983) New Evil Demon scenario, that we have good reason to believe that justication is valuable in and of itself, for its own sake. So, in other words, there is no reason – at least not any that Wright provides us with – why the internalist should endorse the view that justication only has instrumental value and that this value is exhausted as a means to knowledge. Second, another problem with the objection from lack of epistemic value is that it assumes that the internalist, by denying that justication is warrant, somehow "detaches" justication from knowledge (in a way that devalues it). But this, however, need not be the case. The proponent of TJ internalism can afrm that justication is connected with knowledge because it is a necessary condition of it (cf. Madison 2016: 747–8). Indeed, not only is this the standard internalist view,18 it also doesn't devalue justication. As we saw in the previous paragraph, one can maintain that justication is necessary for knowledge and also claim that it either is of instrumental value as a means to satisfying some other (epistemic) property besides knowledge, or that it is of intrinsic epistemic value. For these two reasons, Wright's second objection therefore fails to undermine TJ internalism as it relies on implausible or unmotivated assumptions.19 17 Questions about the value of being in certain epistemic positions are increasingly being discussed by epistemologists. Here, I simply want to point out the kind of view about the value of justication that Wright's objection appears to presuppose. In my response to this objection, I don't commit myself to any specic position on the issue, but rather point to a couple of views held by others. For more detailed discussions of epistemic value, see Haddock et al. (2009). 18 Some, like Poston (n.d.) and McEvoy (2005), claim that internalists are committed to the view that justication, as they understand it, is necessary for knowledge. Although I cannot think of any internalists who would say that you can have knowledge without justication, it doesn't seem like something they're committed to. For example, an internalist can claim that facts about justication supervene upon one's internal reasons, but that whether or not one's beliefs are justied doesn't have any bearing on whether or not they constitute knowledge. 19 Again, if my reconstruction of Wright's second objection is inaccurate insofar as he doesn't really think that justication is Plantinga-warrant (but rather some other externalist condition), I still think that my response goes through. The internalist can still claim that justication isn't detached from knowledge since it is a necessary condition of it, and that justication either is of instrumental value insofar as it is epistemic internalism and testimonial justif ication episteme 7of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms 5. the objection from circular testimony The third objection Wright offers does, at least to my mind, pose a much bigger threat to TJ internalism. In a different paper, Wright (2016a) argues that there are scenarios involving circular testimony where the internalist is committed to saying that circular testimony, contrary to intuition, generates justication. And since the intuitions elicited by cases of circular testimony (sometimes) speak against TJ internalism, the argument from section 2 fails to provide sufcient support for it. Testimonial chains can be circular. This happens whenever you have an epistemic agent a, who tells something to another agent b, who then tells that same (or a relevantly similar) thing to c, who then tells that same (or a relevantly similar) thing to . . . n, who then tells that same (or a relevantly similar) thing to a. Let's call this an instance of circular testimony or, more specically, an n-sized circular testimonial chain. Now, Wright thinks there are cases of circular testimony that threaten TJ internalism. Consider the following scenario: CIRCLE Agatha looks across the street from her house and comes to believe that the building opposite, which she recognizes as Jesus College, is on re. She telephones her friend Francesca to tell her the news. Francesca unhesitatingly believes Agatha and then tells this to her friend Anna, though since Anna does not know the college, Francesca describes the building and its location to Anna who in turn unhesitatingly texts this information to Stacy. Stacy is friends with Anna and unhesitatingly believes her. She is also friends with Agatha and realizes that the building in question is Jesus College. Stacy telephones Agatha and tells her that Jesus College is on re. (Wright 2016a: 2033) CIRCLE presents us with an instance of circular testimony – or a 4-sized circular testimonial chain – where Agatha hears from Stacy that Jesus College is on re. However, according to Wright, since Agatha is responsible for both initiating and terminating the circle, intuitively, she does not receive any testimonial justication for her belief that the college is on re. Although her belief presumably already is justied by her visual experience, the fact that Stacy tells her that the college is on re does not further add to the justication of Agatha's belief. Yet, Wright does not think that all cases of circular testimony fail to generate justication. There must, he thinks, be some other condition that together with the fact that Agatha both initiates and terminates the circle is sufcient for inhibiting the generation of testimonial justication. To indicate what this further condition is, he has us consider the following variation on the rst scenario: CIRCLE* Agatha looks across the street from her house and comes to believe that the building opposite, which she recognizes as Jesus College, is on re. She telephones her friend Francesca to tell her the news. Francesca reects carefully on the likelihood of Agatha being insincere or mistaken and having done so, comes to believe what Agatha says and then tells this to her friend Anna, though since Anna does not know the college, Francesca describes the building and its location to Anna who in turn considers carefully the possibility of Francesca's testimony being false before means to satisfying some other (epistemic) property besides knowledge, or that it has value in and of itself. jonathan egeland 8 epistemeof use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms texting this information to Stacy. Stacy is friends with Anna and carefully considers the plausibility of Anna's claim before deciding to believe her. She is also friends with Agatha and realizes that the house in question is Jesus College. Stacy telephones Agatha and tells her that Jesus College is on re. (Wright 2016a: 2034) Intuitively, Wright thinks that Agatha does receive justication from Stacy's testimony in CIRCLE* – or at the very least he is open to the possibility. What differentiates the two scenarios and makes it the case that only the former kind of circular testimony fails to generate justication is that the listeners in CIRCLE unhesitatingly believe what they're told. In CIRCLE*, however, the listeners critically reect on the plausibility of what they hear, which opens for the possibility that their testimonies can add to the justication of Agatha's belief. This is how Wright puts it: The important difference between the CIRCLE case and the CIRCLE* case is that, in the former, each of the listeners believes what she is told unhesitatingly, whereas in the latter case, each listener reects carefully on the plausibility of what the speaker says before coming to believe it. In the latter case, it might well be plausible to think that the internalist claim that Agatha's overall justication can be enhanced at the end of the case might well be the correct one. The idea is that, since the statement that Jesus College is on re seems plausible to multiple individuals who are independently using their critical faculties, this might make them sensitive to more error possibilities and this might make it intuitive that there's additional justication at the end of the chain. Indeed, this may be the case if just one listener responds by using her critical faculties. (Wright 2016a: 2034) According to Wright, all cases of circular testimony where the listeners unhesitatingly believe what they are told therefore fail to generate justication. Thus, CIRCLE, but not CIRCLE*, is analogous to the following case where a piece of information uncritically is passed along to an agent: INSTRUMENTS Charlie is attempting to monitor the temperature of some liquid in a glass. He is using two instruments to do this. One gives a reading on a screen and the other gives a reading on a gauge. Both instruments indicate that the temperature of the liquid is 19 °C. Unbeknownst to Charlie, however, the instruments have been set up in such a way that the screen isn't connected directly to the liquid in any way, but just corresponds to what the gauge says. (Wright 2016a: 2036) In both cases a source of information (Stacy's testimony in Circle and the screen in INSTRUMENTS) is dependent on another source (Agatha's perception in CIRCLE and the gauge in INSTRUMENTS), and uncritically passes the information to an epistemic agent. However, since any case of circular testimony where the listeners (or receivers of information) unhesitatingly (or uncritically) respond to what they are told (or informed about) fails to generate justication, neither Stacy's testimony nor the screen does anything for Agatha or Charlie's belief. Now, the reason Wright thinks this is problematic for internalism is that if TJ internalism is true, then Agatha's belief in CIRCLE does receive justication from Stacy's testimony. Since Stacy's testimony adds to Agatha's internal reasons for thinking that Jesus College is on re, it should provide testimonial justication to her belief in that proposition. However, intuitively, it does not. Since the listeners in CIRCLE unhesitatingly epistemic internalism and testimonial justif ication episteme 9of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms believe what they're told, Agatha cannot receive justication from Stacy's testimony.20, 21 I will respond by denying that the CIRCLE scenario makes it intuitively plausible that Agatha doesn't receive testimonial justication, instead of failing to receive (or increase) some other epistemic property. To see how exactly this response goes, consider the CIRCLE scenario again. If we evaluate Agatha's epistemic position at the end of the scenario, it is clear that there are several ways in which it is the same or worse than it was at the beginning of the scenario. For example, on the one hand, her belief that Jesus College is on re is no more warranted after listening to Stacy's testimony. If Agatha's visual experience somehow fails to put her in a position to know that the school is on re, then listening to Stacy's testimony doesn't all of a sudden put her in a position to know that it is. Moreover, on the other hand, her belief that Jesus College is on re is no more entitled after listening to Stacy's testimony. Quite to the contrary, it might actually make it less entitled; the reason being that beliefs formed on the basis of visual experiences might actually be more reliable than beliefs formed on the basis of visual experiences and circular testimony where the listeners unhesitatingly believe what they hear.22 Indeed, there appears to be several ways in which Agatha's epistemic position either stays the same or worsens in CIRCLE. However, there is also a way in which her epistemic position appears to improve. After all, Stacy's testimony (despite its circular character) does provide Agatha with an (additional) internal reason for believing that Jesus College is on re. And since there is nothing in the CIRCLE scenario that tells us otherwise, we can account for the presence of this reason by claiming that it adds to Agatha's justication. The proponent of TJ internalism is therefore free to say that the circular testimony in CIRCLE does provide Agatha's belief with testimonial justication, but that it fails to confer any warrant or entitlement upon it. Moreover, the same reply is also available in the INSTRUMENTS scenario. Clearly, the 20 Formulated in this manner, Wright's objection isn't, strictly speaking, sound. The reason is that even though Stacy's testimony adds to Agatha's internal reasons or states, it doesn't follow, according to internalism, that it provides testimonial justication to her belief in the proposition that Jesus College is on re. For all that internalism tells us, one's internal reasons provide the supervenience base of justication; it does not tell us anything about which internal reasons or states are justicationconferring. So it is open for the internalist to adopt the position that Stacy's testimony doesn't provide Agatha with the right kind of internal reason/state that would be required if her belief was to become more justied. However, since I do think that Stacy's testimony provides Agatha with an internal justication-conferring reason, I won't pursue this line of response any further. 21 Wright's worry can also be raised as an objection to Duplicates. Agatha, as he sees it, doesn't receive any justication from Stacy's testimony. However, the Agatha in CIRCLE* – let's call her Agatha* – does (or at the very least might) receive justication from Stacy's testimony even though they are duplicates with respect to their internal reasons. As Wright points out, this is because the hearers in CIRCLE* critically reect on the plausibility of what they hear, whereas the hearers in CIRCLE uncritically accept what they hear. Agatha and Agatha* are therefore alike with respect to internal reasons, but not alike with respect to testimonial justication. Hence, since Duplicates, which follows from TJ internalism, is false, so is TJ internalism. 22 In order for this to be the case the frequency with which beliefs based on visual experiences and circular testimony where the listeners unhesitatingly believe what they're told turn out to be true must be lower than the frequency with which beliefs based on visual experiences turn out to be true. We can easily provide an example where this is the case by imagining a world in which cases of circular testimony where the listeners unhesitatingly believe what they're told usually result in false beliefs (regardless of whether or not those beliefs also are based on visual experiences), whereas beliefs (only) based on visual experiences usually result in true beliefs. jonathan egeland 10 epistemeof use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms presence of the screen doesn't confer any warrant or entitlement upon Charlie's belief, even though it does contribute to its justication. Wright, however, recognizes this response, but thinks that it fails because the intuitions that CIRCLE elicits primarily are about Agatha's epistemic position in general, and not just about justication. This is what he says: The trouble with this response is that the intuitive support for (1) [that there is no increase in Agatha's overall justication] is stronger than the internalist response allows. It might be correct that there's no specic intuition about justication that supports the claim that Agatha's overall justicatory status isn't enhanced and the end of the CIRCLE case. But the lack of such a specic intuition is of no help to internalist theories. When we are more precise about the intuition that CIRCLE brings about, we see that it is the following: (1*) Intuitively, there's no overall improvement in Agatha's epistemic standing in the CIRCLE case . . . The idea is that the intuition in (1*) creates trouble for internalist theories because it implies the truth of (1). The idea is that (1*) is a more general thesis than (1). (Wright 2016a: 2039) Of course, Wright is correct when he claims that we do have certain intuitions about Agatha's epistemic position. But (1*) is not one of them. Let me elaborate. First of all, most philosophers agree that Agatha's epistemic position changes when Stacy tells her that Jesus College is on re; her testimony gives Agatha another internal reason for holding her belief. Wright can of course claim that Stacy's testimony doesn't change Agatha's epistemic position at all. However, Agatha plausibly comes to believe that a friend whom she considers trustworthy thinks that Jesus College is on re when Stacy tells her that it is.Moreover, denying that this somehow changes Agatha's epistemic positionwould seem to involve a commitment to the view that Agatha's new belief cannot, in any sense, provide her with another reason to believe that the school is on re. But this clearly seems to be false. Even though it might not provide her with an external or objective reason to hold that belief, it does provide her with an internal or subjective reason.23 So the question is whether or not this internal reason somehow improves her epistemic position. According to Wright, it doesn't. Moreover, this is just an intuition with which everyone should agree, or so he claims. The problem, however, is that, uncontroversially, there are certain internalist conditions that supervene upon one's internal reasons and that do improve one's epistemic position. For example, internalists and externalists generally agree that epistemic blamelessness (or excusability) is an internalist epistemic property.24, 25 If, say, you are in a skeptical scenario where most or all of your beliefs about the external world are false, it can still be the case that those beliefs are blameless. If your internal reasons indicate that the world is different from how it really is, then you have an excusewhich guarantees that beliefs properly 23 For more on the distinction between objective and subjective reasons for belief, see Sepielli (Forthcoming). 24 But every rule has its exceptions – at least in the philosophical dialectic. For example, Greco (2005) and Srinivasan (2015) claim that there are no interesting internalist properties or norms. However, they face several serious (and, I suspect, insurmountable) objections, the most obvious of which is that it clearly seems, intuitively speaking, that victims of paradigmatic skeptical scenarios do have something epistemically positive going for them. Other, more complex objections have also been developed. See, e.g., Schoeneld (2015). 25 Some internalists think that no sharp distinction can be drawn between justication and blamelessness. See, e.g., Ginet (1975), Chisholm (1989), and Bonjour (1985). epistemic internalism and testimonial justif ication episteme 11of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms based on those reasons are blameless – even though they might be radically unreliable. What's more, all else being equal, having blameless beliefs does constitute an epistemic improvement over having blameworthy beliefs.26 Indeed, a common strategy used by epistemic externalists to argue that intuitions about Lehrer and Cohen's (1983) New Evil Demon Scenario fail to support internalism is to explain our dispositions to positively evaluate the victim's beliefs by saying that they are blameless but unjustied.27 So, in otherwords, there are internalist epistemic properties that do improve one's epistemic position, blamelessness being a case in point. And given that Stacy's testimony provides Agatha with another internal reason for believing that the school is on re, Agatha's belief does become blameless to an even greater degree, thereby improving her epistemic position. Hence, (1*) is false and the motivation for (1) undermined. In sum, my response to the objection from circular testimony is that cases like CIRCLE and INSTRUMENTS don't reveal anything special about testimonial justication, rather than some other epistemic property. The internalist, in other words, is free to characterize Agatha as receiving testimonial justication, while failing to receive any entitlement or warrant. Moreover, as we've seen, Wright's counterargument that 1. Agatha's epistemic position doesn't improve in the CIRCLE scenario. 2. If Agatha's epistemic position doesn't improve in the CIRCLE scenario, then she doesn't receive any testimonial justication. 3. Therefore, Agatha's doesn't receive any testimonial justication. fails since the rst premise is false. Intuitively, there are internalist epistemic conditions, like blamelessness, that do improve Agatha's epistemic position. And given that Wright's third objection against the argument from section 2 doesn't succeed, TJ internalism remains well-motivated. 6. wright's "halfway externalism" Having offered his objection from circular testimony against TJ internalism, Wright ends his (2016a) paper by trying to differentiate his views from the wholesale externalism of 26 This claim can of course be contested, but only by failing to recognize or somehow contesting the epistemic force of internal or subjective reasons for belief. 27 See, e.g., Williamson (2007), Littlejohn (2009), and Pritchard (2012). A problem with this objection, however, is that it fails to recognize the way in which our intuitions about justication are sensitive to a distinction between beliefs that are false due to perceptual failings and beliefs that are false due to cognitive failings. For example, the victim of the New Evil Demon scenario has beliefs that are false due to perceptual failings (in the sense that his beliefs fail to adequately represent the environment he is situated in), but they still seem justied. On the other hand, if we imagine a similar victim but who also is subject to cognitive failings, like brainwashing or some reason-distorting drug he's been given, that makes him unable to form his beliefs by properly basing them on his perceptual evidence, then they don't seem justied. However, the beliefs of the second victim are clearly just as blameless as those of the rst; both of them (let's stipulate) try their best to respect their evidence. Indeed, the difference between their epistemic positions seems to be a difference of justication. But this is not something the proponent of the objection above can acknowledge. As he would have it, both victims have beliefs that are blamelessly unjustied. For more on this problem, see Pryor (2001), Egeland (Forthcoming), and Smithies (Forthcoming). jonathan egeland 12 epistemeof use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms Jennifer Lackey. Lackey (2008) argues against TJ internalism28 by presenting a scenario purporting to elicit intuitions to the effect that reliable or truth-conducive testimony is a necessary condition for testimonial justication.29 Now, if her argument is sound, then it follows that a listener's internal reasons alone never are sufcient for justifying belief in a speaker's testimony; there is, as she points out, an additional "speakercondition" on testimonial justication (Lackey 2008: 150).30 This, however, is highly problematic according to Wright. If Lackey is correct, then the internalist story is simply false: having internal reasons are never sufcient for having testimonial justication. But this, he thinks, amounts to radical skepticism when it comes to the epistemic importance of internal reasons. Instead, Wright claims that TJ internalism tells a true story about testimonial justication when it comes to certain cases, but that it isn't the full story: It [Lackey's externalism] seems to amount to an endorsement of a wholesale scepticism about a listener's reasons in the epistemology of testimony. In the same way that it's one thing to think that inductive evidence in epistemology generally might sometimes fail to justify one's belief, but another thing to think that they never justify one's belief, in the epistemology of testimony 28 More specically, she argues against reductionism in the epistemology of testimony. However, since it is somewhat controversial how we should draw the reductionism/anti-reductionism distinction, and since internalism clearly also is one of the reductionist views her objection targets, I'll simply, for the purpose of convenience, frame it as an objection against TJ internalism. 29 The scenario she presents, entitled NESTED SPEAKER, is as follows: Fred has known Helen for ve years and, during this time, he has acquired excellent epistemic reasons for believing her to be a highly reliable source of information on a wide range of topics. For instance, each time she has made a personal or professional recommendation to Fred, her assessment has proven to be accurate; each time she has reported an incident to Fred, her version of the story has been independently conrmed; each time she has recounted historical information, all of the major historical texts and gures have fully supported her account, and so on. Yesterday, Helen told Fred that Pauline, a close friend of hers, is a highly trustworthy person, especially when it comes to information regarding wild birds. Because of this, Fred unhesitatingly believed Pauline earlier today when she told him that albatrosses, not condors (as is widely believed), have the largest wingspan among wild birds. It turns out that while Helen is an epistemically excellent source of information, she was incorrect on this particular occasion: Pauline is, in fact, a highly incompetent and insincere speaker, especially on the topic of wild birds. Moreover, though Pauline is correct in her report about albatrosses, she came to hold this belief merely on the basis of wishful thinking (in order to make her reading of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner more compelling) (Lackey 2008: 149). Moreover, as she makes clear, the fact that Pauline's testimony is unreliable prevents Fred from receiving any justication from it: "For, even though Helen's testimony provides Fred with excellent positive reasons for accepting the report in question, Pauline is not only a generally unreliable speaker, but she is also reporting a belief which, though true, fails to be reliably produced or appropriately truth-conducive. Because of this, the testimony that Pauline offers to Fred also fails to be reliably produced or appropriately truth-conducive, thereby preventing it from leading to justied or warranted belief for Fred" (Lackey 2008: 149–50). 30 "What NESTED SPEAKER reveals is that the possession of good positive reasons by a hearer is not sufcient for accepting a speaker's testimony with justication or warrant. Why? Because the possession of positive reasons on behalf of a speaker's report, even when objectively excellent ones, does not necessarily put one in contact with testimony that is reliable. There is, then, a further necessary condition for testimonial justication or warrant, one that requires that a speaker's testimony be reliable or otherwise truth-conducive" (Lackey 2008: 150). Note how, when it comes to testimonial justication, this shifts the focus away from the hearer and over to the speaker. epistemic internalism and testimonial justif ication episteme 13of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms it is one thing to think that a listener's reasons might sometimes fail to justify her belief, or that there must be more to the supervenience base of justication from testimony than these reasons, but quite another thing to think that they never justify a listener's belief. Lackey's argument . . . yields the conclusion that internalist evidence never justies beliefs based on testimony. The argument based on CIRCLE doesn't yield this conclusion. . . . This is why the argument here is an argument against the idea that the supervenience claim . . . gives a complete account of justication from testimony (Wright 2016a: 2045). So, in other words, Wright thinks (i) that Lackey's wholesale externalism commits her to skepticism about the epistemic importance of internal reasons, and (ii) that we therefore should adopt some sort of "halfway externalism," according to which a hearer's internal reasons sometimes, but not always, are sufcient for testimonial justication. However, there are a couple of reasons why these views are problematic. First, Lackey's claim that internal reasons aren't sufcient for testimonial justication doesn't commit her to skepticism about the epistemic importance of such reasons since it can still be the case that they are necessary for testimonial justication or some other epistemic property. For example, she can argue that internal reasons are a necessary, but not sufcient, condition for having testimonially justied beliefs. In that case, internal reasons play a key role in avoiding skepticism. In addition, just because one thinks that a certain set of states (like one's internal reasons) is insufcient for producing certain effects (like a change in one's testimonial justication), it doesn't follow that that set of states is insufcient for producing any relevant effect (like a change in blamelessness). Thus, Wright's criticism of Lackey and her externalist views undermines nothing other than a strawman. Second, claiming that TJ internalism is correct insofar as internal reasons sometimes are sufcient for testimonial justication doesn't only undermine Lackey's view, but also appears to undermine Wright's own "halfway externalism." To see why this is so, consider the following passage from the end of his paper: Unless we claim, however, that [a hearer's internal] reasons cannot justify beliefs tout court, it is hard to see how we can maintain Lackey's claim that they do not justify the listener's belief in the NESTED SPEAKER case, or in any other testimony case . . . No such sceptical consequences follow from the argument that I have given here. (Wright 2016a: 2045) What Wright here says is that unless we claim that wholesale externalism (which really just is regular externalism) is true, then it is hard to see why the listener's belief in Lackey's scenario, or any other (relevantly similar) scenario, should fail to receive testimonial justication from his internal reasons.31 Or, in other words, if we either adopt TJ internalism 31 When it comes to the NESTED SPEAKER scenario, the internalist might, as usual, stress the fact that from Fred's perspective there is much that speaks in favor of the trustworthiness of Pauline's testimony and virtually nothing that speaks against it. Even if we were to imagine Fred as an ideally rational agent that always responds in the most epistemically reasonable manner to the reasons he has, we are still disposed to say that Fred should believe what Pauline says. Lackey, moreover, appears to offer two responses – one quite modest and the other rather bold. According to the modest objection, the internalist is right to claim that Fred's belief is testimonially justied, but that it fails to satisfy other (externalist) epistemic properties like warrant and knowledge (Lackey 2008: 150, fn 11). This objection simply concedes that the internalist jonathan egeland 14 epistemeof use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms or Wright's own "halfway externalism," then none of the scenarios we can come up with will appear to undermine the view that the listener's internal reasons in that scenario are sufcient for testimonial justication. However, if there are no such cases – i.e., no counterexamples – then not only does that undermine Wright's own objections against the internalist, it also seems to constitute an argument in favor of TJ internalism. Let me be more precise. First, if there are no counterexamples to TJ internalism, then neither his scenario in the (2016b) paper nor the CIRCLE scenario can provide the intuitive basis for an argument against it. And, as we've seen above, neither of those scenarios appears to provide such a basis (or so I have argued). Second, if TJ internalism tells a true story about the determinants of testimonial justication, and there aren't any counterexamples, then we have good reason to believe that it also is the whole story. The different (internalist or externalist) theories of justication on the market all rely, for their support, on intuitions elicited by various scenarios. Moreover, if only one of these theories – namely, TJ internalism – plausibly is able to account for all of these intuitions, then, unless there are other theoretical considerations that weigh heavier than the intuitions and that count against it, that theory remains well-motivated. For these reasons, I conclude that Wright's "halfway externalism" doesn't constitute a theoretically viable position, but rather must collapse into wholesale externalism or internalism about testimonial justication. 7. conclusion Internalists about the epistemology of testimony claim that a hearer's testimonial justication supervenes upon his internal reasons for believing that what the speaker says is true. This claim, which I've called TJ internalism, is not without its critics. In this paper, I have argued in favor of TJ internalism and responded to three recent objections raised by Wright. The upshot of my discussion is that TJ internalism remains as plausible as ever: testimonial justication does supervene upon one's internal reasons. However, the externalist is right to claim that not all epistemic properties are internal. As we have seen, epistemic agents who are duplicates with respect to their internal reasons often do differ with respect to properties like warrant or entitlement. Yet, although this difference often is of great epistemic importance, it does not undermine internalism in the epistemology of testimony. Moreover, I've also suggested that one shouldn't try to balance between internalism and externalism about testimonial justication: the ground in-between the positions is simply too narrow (or perhaps not there at all). For simplicity's sake, we should expect the set of internal reasons to either be a sufcient supervenience base for testimonial justication or not, rather than believing its character to be multiform and changing on a case by case basis.32 is victorious. The bold objection, on the other hand, says that both internalists and externalists are committed to the view that justication is reliable or truth-conducive, and that Fred's belief therefore will be unjustied on both kinds of view (Lackey 2008: 151–2). This objection, however, clearly misrepresents the internalist position (which need not impose a reliability condition on justication), and thus ultimately fails to engage with the internalist response to NESTED SPEAKER. epistemic internalism and testimonial justif ication episteme 15of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms references Adler, J. 2002. Belief's Own Ethics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Alston, W. P. 1989. Epistemic Justication: Essays in the Theory of Knowledge. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Bonjour, L. 1985. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burge, T. 2003. 'Content Preservation.' Philosophical Review, 103: 457–488. Casullo, P. 2003. 'A Priori Justication.' New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Chisholm, R. 1989. Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Egeland, J. Forthcoming. 'The Demon That Makes Us Go Mental: Mentalism Defended.' Philosophical Studies, 1–18. Faulkner, P. 2011. Knowledge On Trust. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foley, R. 1993. Working Without a Net: A Study of Egocentric Epistemology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fricker, E. 1994. 'Against Gullibility.' In B. Matilal and A. Chakrabarti (eds), Knowing FromWords, pp. 125–61. Dordrecht: Kluwer. --- 1995. 'Critical Notice: Telling and Trusting: Reductionism and Anti-Reductionism in the Epistemology of Testimony.' Mind, 104(414): 393–411. --- 2006. 'Testimony and Epistemic Autonomy.' In J. Lackey and E. Sosa (eds), The Epistemology of Testimony, pp. 225–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fumerton, R. 2006. 'The Epistemic Role of Testimony: Internalist and Externalist Perspectives.' In J. Lackey and E. Sosa (eds), The Epistemology of Testimony, pp. 77–92. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gerken, M. 2013. 'Internalism and Externalism in the Epistemology of Testimony.' Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 87(3): 532–57. Gettier, E. L. 1963. 'Is Justied True Belief Knowledge?' Analysis, 23(6): 121–3. Ginet, K. 1975. Knowledge, Perception, and Memory. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Goldman, A. 1976. 'Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge.' Journal of Philosophy, 73: 771–91. Graham, P. 2010. 'Testimonial Entitlement and the Function of Comprehension.' In A. Haddock, A. Millar and D. Pritchard (eds), Social Epistemology, pp. 148–174. Oxford University Press. Greco, J. 2005. 'Justication is Not Internal.' In M. Steup and E. Sosa (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 257–69. Oxford: Blackwell. Haddock A., Millar A. and Pritchard D. H. (eds) 2009. Epistemic Value. Oxford University Press. Lackey, J. 2008. Learning from Words: Testimony as a Source of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lehrer, K. 2006. 'Testimony and Trustworthiness.' In J. Lackey and E. Sosa (eds), The Epistemology of Testimony, pp. 145–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. --- and Cohen, S. 1983. 'Justication, Truth, and Coherence.' Synthese, 55(2): 191–207. Lipton, P. 2007. 'Alien Abduction: Inference to the Best Explanation and the Management of Testimony.' Episteme, 4: 238–51. Littlejohn, C. 2009. 'The Externalist's Demon.' Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 39(3): 399–434. --- 2012. Justication and the Truth-Connection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, J. 1997. 'Testimony, Induction and Folk Psychology.' Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75: 163–78. Madison, B. 2016. 'Internalism in the Epistemology of Testimony Redux.' Erkenntnis, 81(4): 741–55. --- 2017. 'Epistemic Value and the New Evil Demon.' Pacic Philosophical Quarterly, 98(1): 89–107. Malmgren, A.-S. 2006. 'Is There A Priori Knowledge by Testimony?' Philosophical Review, 115: 199–241. 32 Work on this article has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme under Grant Agreement no. 675415. jonathan egeland 16 epistemeof use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms McEvoy, M. 2005. 'The Internalist Counterexample to Reliabilism.' Journal of Southwestern Philosophical Society, 21(1): 178–87. Plantinga, A. 1993. Warrant: The Current Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poston, T. n.d. 'Internalism and Externalism in Epistemology.' Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/int-ext/. Pritchard, D. 2012. Epistemological Disjunctivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pryor, J. 2001. 'Highlights of Recent Epistemology.' British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52(1): 95–124. Schmitt, F. 1999. 'Social Epistemology.' In J. Greco and E. Sosa (eds), The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, pp. 354–82. Oxford: Blackwell. Schoeneld, M. 2015. 'Internalism Without Luminosity.' Philosophical Issues, 25(1): 252–72. Sepielli, A. Forthcoming. 'Subjective and Objective Reasons.' In D. Star (ed.), Oxford Handbook on Reasons and Normativity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shogenji, T. 2006. 'A Defense of Reductionism About Testimonial Justication of Beliefs.' Noûs, 40: 331–46. Smithies, D. 2015. 'Why Justication Matters.' In D. Henderson and J. Greco (eds), Epistemic Evaluation: Purposeful Epistemology, pp. 224–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. --- Forthcoming. The Epistemic Role of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sosa, E. 2010. Knowing Full Well. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Srinivasan, A. 2015. 'Normativity Without Cartesian Privilege.' Philosophical Issues, 25(1): 273–99. Williamson, T. 2007. 'On Being Justied in One's Head.' In M. Timmons, J. Greco and A. Mele (eds), Rationality and the Good: Critical Essays on the Ethics and Epistemology of Robert Audi, pp. 106–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wright, S. 2016a. 'Circular Testimony.' Philosophical Studies, 173(8): 2029–48. --- 2016b. 'Internalism and the Epistemology of Testimony.' Erkenntnis, 81(1): 69–86. jonathan egeland is a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Stockholm University. His research interests are primarily focused on epistemology, philosophy of mind, 19th century German philosophy, and certain issues in the philosophy of science. He currently, works for the Diaphora project – a European research and training network for collaborative research on the nature of philosophical problems, their resilience, the sources of persistent divergence of expert opinion about them, and their relation to conicts in the practical sphere. epistemic internalism and testimonial justif ication episteme 17of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2018.48 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 185.192.69.101, on 06 Dec 2018 at 10:06:41, subject to the Cambridge Core terms