Abstract

Most epistemologists agree that testimony is an important source of knowledge. However, they fundamentally disagree whether it is a basic source as perception or not. The reductionist standpoint concerning testimony holds that, testimony is not a basic source of knowledge, so hearers cannot justify about what they are told simply on the basis of the testimony of speakers. The justification of testimony comes from other basic sources such as perception, reason and consciousness. However, in this article, I will propose a problem of some reductionist arguments. That is, although the arguments can reject testimony as a basic source of knowledge, other sources which are generally accepted as basic sources of knowledge are rejected as well.