I just got the word from Goldman. My paper “On the Nature of Testimony” has been accepted for publication at Episteme!
I need to make some minor stylistic changes and correct a few typos. As soon as I do that, I’ll post the penultimate version here. For now, I’ll post the abstract.
On the Nature of Testimony
Abstract
In this paper, I will present some recent views on the nature of testimony. I will argue that these views are unsatisfactory. I will then consider Jennifer Lackey’s recent view on the nature of testimony. Her view is supposed to avoid the problems that the views I consider in the first section face. I think her view is superior to the views she rejects, but I think it has at least two problems. After discussing those problems, I offer an alternative view.
It’s basically a paper on the metaphysics of testimony (rather than the epistemology of testimony). In the first part of the paper, I agree with much of what Lackey says regarding the views she criticizes in this paper. Much of the paper involves defending counterexamples to Lackey’s proposed analysis of testimony and then offering an alternative analysis that is in the spirit of one of the views that she successfully defeats in the beginning of her paper.
P.S. I received incredibly helpful comments from an anonymous reviewer on this paper. Dear reviewer, your comments were incredibly thorough, thoughtful, clear, and helpful. This paper is much, much better because of you. So, if you’re reading this – thank you very, very much.
Congrats! Incidentally, my advisor at UCSB (AZ) reviewed Lackey’s book for NDPR.
Congratulations!
Congratulations, Andy!
Congrats, Andy. You’re a machine.
Thanks everyone.
I never knew you wrote on testimony. We’ve gotta talk sometime soon about trauma and witnessing!