Philosophical methodology
In its most common sense, philosophical methodology is the field of inquiry studying the methods used to do philosophy. But the term can also refer to the methods themselves. It may be understood in a wide sense as the general study of principles used for theory selection, or in a more narrow sense as the study of ways of conducting one's research and theorizing with the goal of acquiring philosophical knowledge. Philosophical methodology investigates both descriptive issues, such as which methods actually have been used by philosophers, and normative issues, such as which methods should be used or how to do good philosophy.
A great variety of philosophical methods have been employed.
The questions in philosophical methodology do not primarily concern which philosophical claims are true, but how to determine which ones are true. However, these two issues are closely related nonetheless since the choice of one's method often has important implications for the arguments cited for and against philosophical theories. In this sense, methodological disagreements are often reflected in philosophical disagreements. Philosophical methodology is closely related to various fields. Theorists often use the contrast to the natural sciences to emphasize how different the methods of philosophy are. Philosophical methodology has also an intimate relation with epistemology since both fields are interested in studying how to determine what we should believe.
Definition
The term "philosophical methodology" refers either to the methods used to philosophize or to the branch of metaphilosophy studying these methods.[1][2][3][4] A method is a way of doing things, such as a set of actions or decisions, in order to achieve a certain goal, when used under the right conditions.[3] In the context of inquiry, a method is a way of conducting one's research and theorizing, like inductive or axiomatic methods in logic or experimental methods in the sciences.[2] Philosophical methodology studies the methods of philosophy. It is not primarily concerned with whether a philosophical position, such as metaphysical dualism or utilitarianism, is true or false. Instead, it asks how one can determine which position should be adopted.[5]
In the widest sense, any principle for choosing between competing theories may be considered as part of the methodology of philosophy. In this sense, philosophical methodology is "the general study of criteria for theory-selection". For example,
An important difference in philosophical methodology concerns the distinction between descriptive and
Methods
A great variety of philosophical methods has been proposed. Some of these methods were developed as a reaction to other methods, for example, to counter skepticism by providing a secure path to knowledge.[10][14] In other cases, one method may be understood as a development or a specific application of another method. Some philosophers or philosophical movements give primacy to one specific method, while others use a variety of methods depending on the problem they are trying to solve. It has been argued that many of the philosophical methods are also commonly used implicitly in more crude forms by regular people and are only given a more careful, critical, and systematic exposition in philosophical methodology.[11]
Methodological skepticism
Geometrical method
The geometrical method came to particular prominence through rationalists like
Phenomenological method
Another phenomenological method is called "
Verificationism
The method of
Conceptual analysis
The goal of
Common sense
The method of
One important argument against this method is that common sense has often been wrong in the past, as is exemplified by various scientific discoveries. This suggests that common sense is in such cases just an antiquated theory that is eventually eliminated by the progress of science.
Ordinary language philosophy
The method of ordinary language philosophy consists in tackling philosophical questions based on how the related terms are used in ordinary language.[3][52][53] In this sense, it is related to the method of common sense but focuses more on linguistic aspects.[10] Some types of ordinary language philosophy only take a negative form in that they try to show how philosophical problems are not real problems at all. Instead, it is aimed to show that false assumptions, to which humans are susceptible due to the confusing structure of natural language, are responsible for this false impression.[54][3] Other types take more positive approaches by defending and justifying philosophical claims, for example, based on what sounds insightful or odd to the average English speaker.[10]
One problem for ordinary language philosophy is that regular speakers may have many different reasons for using a certain expression. Sometimes they intend to express what they believe, but other times they may be motivated by politeness or other conversational norms independent of the truth conditions of the expressed sentences.[10] This significantly complicates ordinary language philosophy, since philosophers have to take the specific context of the expression into account, which may considerably alter its meaning.[52] This criticism is partially mitigated by J. L. Austin's approach to ordinary language philosophy. According to him, ordinary language already has encoded many important distinctions and is our point of departure in theorizing. But "ordinary language is not the last word: in principle, it can everywhere be supplemented and improved upon and superseded".[10] However, it also falls prey to another criticism: that it is often not clear how to distinguish ordinary from non-ordinary language. This makes it difficult in all but the paradigmatic cases to decide whether a philosophical claim is or is not supported by ordinary language.[52][55]
Intuition and thought experiments
Methods based on
Intuitions can be used in various ways as a philosophical method. On the one hand, philosophers may consult their intuitions in relation to very general principles, which may then be used to deduce further theorems. Another technique, which is often applied in ethics, consists in considering concrete scenarios instead of general principles.[58] This often takes the form of thought experiments, in which certain situations are imagined with the goal of determining the possible consequences of the imagined scenario.[59][60] These consequences are assessed using intuition and counterfactual thinking.[35][43] For this reason, thought experiments are sometimes referred to as intuition pumps: they activate the intuitions concerning the specific situation, which may then be generalized to arrive at universal principles.[61][62] In some cases, the imagined scenario is physically possible but it would not be feasible to make an actual experiment due to the costs, negative consequences, or technological limitations.[10] But other thought experiments even work with scenarios that defy what is physically possible.[59][60] It is controversial to what extent thought experiments merit to be characterized as real experiments and whether the insights they provide are reliable.[10]
One problem with intuitions in general and thought experiments in particular consists in assessing their epistemological status, i.e. whether, how much, and in which circumstances they provide
Reflective equilibrium
Reflective equilibrium is a state in which a thinker has the impression that they have considered all the relevant evidence for and against a theory and have made up their mind on this issue.[10][70] It is a state of coherent balance among one's beliefs.[71] This does not imply that all the evidence has really been considered, but it is tied to the impression that engaging in further inquiry is unlikely to make one change one's mind, i.e. that one has reached a stable equilibrium. In this sense, it is the endpoint of the deliberative process on the issue in question.[70][71] The philosophical method of reflective equilibrium aims at reaching this type of state by mentally going back and forth between all relevant beliefs and intuitions. In this process, the thinker may have to let go of some beliefs or deemphasize certain intuitions that do not fit into the overall picture in order to progress.[70][71]
In this wide sense, reflective equilibrium is connected to a form of
When understood in a more narrow sense, the method aims at finding an equilibrium between particular intuitions and general principles.[10][70] On this view, the thinker starts with intuitions about particular cases and formulates general principles that roughly reflect these intuitions. The next step is to deal with the conflicts between the two by adjusting both the intuitions and the principles to reconcile them until an equilibrium is reached.[10][70] One problem with this narrow interpretation is that it depends very much on the intuitions one started with. This means that different philosophers may start with very different intuitions and may therefore be unable to find a shared equilibrium.[10][72] For example, the narrow method of reflective equilibrium may lead some moral philosophers towards utilitarianism and others towards Kantianism.[70]
Pragmatic method
The pragmatic method assesses the truth or falsity of theories by looking at the consequences of accepting them.[73] In this sense, "[t]he test of truth is utility: it's true if it works".[74] Pragmatists approach intractable philosophical disputes in a down-to-earth fashion by asking about the concrete consequences associated, for example, with whether an abstract metaphysical theory is true or false. This is also intended to clarify the underlying issues by spelling out what would follow from them.[75] Another goal of this approach is to expose pseudo-problems, which involve a merely verbal disagreement without any genuine difference on the level of the consequences between the competing standpoints.[73][75]
Succinct summaries of the pragmatic method base it on the pragmatic maxim, of which various versions exist. An important version is due to Charles Sanders Peirce: "Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of those effects is the whole of our conception of the object."[75] Another formulation is due to William James: "To develop perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then, we need only consider what effects of a conceivable practical kind the object may involve – what sensations we are to expect from it and what reactions we must prepare".[76] Various criticisms to the pragmatic method have been raised. For example, it is commonly rejected that the terms "true" and "useful" mean the same thing. A closely related problem is that believing in a certain theory may be useful to one person and useless to another, which would mean the same theory is both true and false.[77]
Transcendental method
The transcendental method is used to study phenomena by reflecting on the
Transcendental arguments have faced various challenges. On the one hand, the claim that the belief in a certain assumption is necessary for the experience of a certain entity is often not obvious. So in the example above, critics can argue against the transcendental argument by denying the claim that an external world is necessary for the experience of the temporal order of our mental states. But even if this point is granted, it does not guarantee that the assumption itself is true. So even if the belief in a given proposition is a psychological necessity for a certain experience, it does not automatically follow that this belief itself is true. Instead, it could be the case that humans are just wired in such a way that they have to believe in certain false assumptions.[80][81]
Experimental philosophy
One problem for both the positive and the negative approaches is that the data obtained from surveys do not constitute hard empirical evidence since they do not directly express the intuitions of the participants. The participants may react to subtle pragmatic cues in giving their answers, which brings with it the need for further interpretation in order to get from the given answers to the intuitions responsible for these answers.[10] Another problem concerns the question of how reliable the intuitions of ordinary people on the often very technical issues are.[84][85][86] The core of this objection is that, for many topics, the opinions of ordinary people are not very reliable since they have little familiarity with the issues themselves and the underlying problems they may pose. For this reason, it has been argued that they cannot replace the expert intuitions found in trained philosophers.[84][85][86] Some critics have even argued that experimental philosophy does not really form part of philosophy. This objection does not reject that the method of experimental philosophy has value, it just rejects that this method belongs to philosophical methodology.[84]
Others
Various other philosophical methods have been proposed. The Socratic method or Socratic debate is a form of cooperative philosophizing in which one philosopher usually first states a claim, which is then scrutinized by their interlocutor by asking them questions about various related claims, often with the implicit goal of putting the initial claim into doubt. It continues to be a popular method for teaching philosophy.[87][88][7] Plato and Aristotle emphasize the role of wonder in the practice of philosophy. On this view, "philosophy begins in wonder"[89] and "[i]t was their wonder, astonishment, that first led men to philosophize and still leads them".[90] This position is also adopted in the more recent philosophy of Nicolai Hartmann.[91] Various other types of methods were discussed in ancient Greek philosophy, like analysis, synthesis, dialectics, demonstration, definition, and reduction to absurdity. The medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas identifies composition and division as ways of forming propositions while he sees invention and judgment as forms of reasoning from the known to the unknown.[2]
Various methods for the selection between competing theories have been proposed.[4][5] They often focus on the theoretical virtues of the involved theories.[92][93] One such method is based on the idea that, everything else being equal, the simpler theory is to be preferred. Another gives preference to the theory that provides the best explanation. According to the method of epistemic conservatism, we should, all other things being equal, prefer the theory which, among its competitors, is the most conservative, i.e. the one closest to the beliefs we currently hold.[43][92][93] One problem with these methods of theory selection is that it is usually not clear how the different virtues are to be weighted, often resulting in cases where they are unable to resolve disputes between competing theories that excel at different virtues.[92][10]
According to truthmaker theorists, every true proposition is true because another entity, its truthmaker, exists. This principle can be used as a methodology to critically evaluate philosophical theories.[96][10] In particular, this concerns theories that accept certain truths but are unable to provide their truthmaker. Such theorists are derided as ontological cheaters. For example, this can be applied to philosophical presentism, the view that nothing outside the present exists. Philosophical presentists usually accept the very common belief that dinosaurs existed but have trouble in providing a truthmaker for this belief since they deny existence to past entities.[96][10][97][98]
In philosophy, the term "
Disagreements and influence
The disagreements within philosophy do not only concern which first-order philosophical claims are true, they also concern the second-order issue of which philosophical methods to use.[4][10] One way to evaluate philosophical methods is to assess how well they do at solving philosophical problems.[9] The question of the nature of philosophy has important implications for which methods of inquiry are appropriate to philosophizing.[4][7][102] Seeing philosophy as an empirical science brings its methods much closer to the methods found in the natural sciences. Seeing it as the attempt to clarify concepts and increase understanding, on the other hand, usually leads to a methodology much more focused on apriori reasoning.[12][103][7] In this sense, philosophical methodology is closely tied up with the question of how philosophy is to be defined. Different conceptions of philosophy often associated it with different goals, leading to certain methods being more or less suited to reach the corresponding goal.[4][12]
The interest in philosophical methodology has risen a lot in contemporary philosophy.[5][13] But some philosophers reject its importance by emphasizing that "preoccupation with questions about methods tends to distract us from prosecuting the methods themselves".[4] However, such objections are often dismissed by pointing out that philosophy is at its core a reflective and critical enterprise, which is perhaps best exemplified by its preoccupation with its own methods. This is also backed up by the arguments to the effect that one's philosophical method has important implications for how one does philosophy and which philosophical claims one accepts or rejects.[4][104][13] Since philosophy also studies the methodology of other disciplines, such as the methods of science, it has been argued that the study of its own methodology is an essential part of philosophy.[4]
In several instances in the history of philosophy, the discovery of a new philosophical method, such as Cartesian doubt or the phenomenological method, has had important implications both on how philosophers conducted their theorizing and what claims they set out to defend. In some cases, such discoveries led the involved philosophers to overly optimistic outlooks, seeing them as historic breakthroughs that would dissolve all previous disagreements in philosophy.[10][3][105]
Relation to other fields
Science
The methods of philosophy differ in various respects from the methods found in the natural sciences. One important difference is that philosophy does not use experimental data obtained through measuring equipment like telescopes or cloud chambers to justify its claims.[9][11][43][7] For example, even philosophical naturalists emphasizing the close relation between philosophy and the sciences mostly practice a form of armchair theorizing instead of gathering empirical data.[4] Experimental philosophers are an important exception: they use methods found in social psychology and other empirical sciences to test their claims.[4][84][85]
One reason for the methodological difference between philosophy and science is that philosophical claims are usually more speculative and cannot be verified or falsified by looking through a telescope.[7] This problem is not solved by citing works published by other philosophers, since it only defers the question of how their insights are justified. An additional complication concerning testimony is that different philosophers often defend mutually incompatible claims, which poses the challenge of how to select between them.[9][106][107] Another difference between scientific and philosophical methodology is that there is wide agreement among scientists concerning their methods, testing procedures, and results. This is often linked to the fact that science has seen much more progress than philosophy.[10][5]
Epistemology
An important goal of philosophical methods is to assist philosophers in attaining knowledge.
Philosophical evidence, which may be obtained, for example, through intuitions or thought experiments, is central for justifying basic principles and axioms.[108][109] These principles can then be used as premises to support further conclusions. Some approaches to philosophical methodology emphasize that these arguments have to be deductively valid, i.e. that the truth of their premises ensures the truth of their conclusion.[10] In other cases, philosophers may commit themselves to working hypotheses or norms of investigation even though they lack sufficient evidence. Such assumptions can be quite fruitful in simplifying the possibilities the philosopher needs to consider and by guiding them to ask interesting questions. But the lack of evidence makes this type of enterprise vulnerable to criticism.[5]
See also
References
- ^ "methodology". The American Heritage Dictionary. HarperCollins. Retrieved 20 February 2022.
- ^ a b c McKeon, R. "Methodology (Philosophy)". New Catholic Encyclopedia.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Sandkühler, Hans Jörg, ed. (2010). "Methode/Methodologie". Enzyklopädie Philosophie. Meiner.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-107-54736-0.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-966877-9.
- ^ "Occam's razor". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- ^ a b c d e f g Audi, Robert (2006). "Philosophy". Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition. Macmillan.
- ISBN 978-90-04-42049-6.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-55111-934-2.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-137-34455-7.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-184724-0.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-521-19341-2.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-966877-9.
- ^ ISBN 9781405121545.
- ISSN 0967-2559.
- ^ Goldenbaum, Ursula. "Geometrical Method". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 17 February 2022.
- ISBN 978-0-521-83620-3.
- ^ Hatfield, Gary (2018). "René Descartes: 3.5 God and error". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- ^ Doppelt, Torin (2010). "3: The Truth About 1A4". Spinoza's Causal Axiom: A Defense (PDF).
- ^ Smith, David Woodruff (2018). "Phenomenology: 1. What is Phenomenology?". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 20 September 2021.
- ^ Smith, Joel. "Phenomenology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
- ^ a b Cogan, John. "Phenomenological Reduction, The". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- S2CID 24597361. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
- ^ MacAvoy, Leslie. "Robert C. Scharff: Heidegger Becoming Phenomenological: Interpreting Husserl Through Dilthey, 1916-1925". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
- ^ a b Drummond, John J. (2009). "Eidetic variation". Historical Dictionary of Husserl's Philosophy. Scarecrow Press.
- ^ Spear, Andrew D. "Husserl, Edmund: Intentionality and Intentional Content". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 December 2020.
- ^ Gander, Hans-Helmuth (2009). "Ontologie". Husserl Lexikon. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
- ISBN 9780415125987.
- JSTOR 2250385.
- ^ Creath, Richard (2021). "Logical Empiricism: 4.1 Empiricism, Verificationism, and Anti-metaphysics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- S2CID 141073837.
- S2CID 196700261.
- ISBN 9781118901762.
- ^ "criterion of falsifiability". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 5 March 2022.
- ^ S2CID 54631297.
- S2CID 148551744.
- ^ Shaffer, Michael (18 November 2020). "5. Necessary and Sufficient Conditions". Introduction to Philosophy: Logic. Rebus Foundation.
- ^ Laskowski, N. G.; Finlay, Stephen (2017). "Conceptual Analysis in Metaethics". The Routledge Handbook of Metaethics. Routledge. pp. 536–551.
- .
- ^ McPherson, Tristram (2015). "Open question argument". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
- ^ Hurka, Thomas (2021). "Moore's Moral Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- ^ Leitgeb, Hannes; Carus, André (2020). "Rudolf Carnap > D. Methodology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)". plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- ^ a b c d Ichikawa, Jonathan. "Chris Daly: An Introduction to Philosophical Methods". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- ISSN 0031-806X.
- ^ a b c "philosophy of common sense". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- ^ "Analytic philosophy - History of analytic philosophy: G.E. Moore". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- S2CID 229662541.
- ^ Horgan, John. "Einstein and Science's Assault on Common Sense". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ Nichols, Ryan; Yaffe, Gideon (2021). "Thomas Reid: 1.1 Common Sense and First Principles". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- ^ Legum, Richard. "Roderick M. Chisholm: Epistemology". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
- JSTOR 27903601.
- ^ a b c Parker-Ryan, Sally. "Ordinary Language Philosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ^ "ordinary language analysis". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ^ Joll, Nicholas. "Metaphilosophy". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ISBN 978-0-7456-2358-0.
- ^ "Intuitionism (ethics)". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ^ a b c Pust, Joel (2019). "Intuition: 1. The Nature of Intuitions". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ^ a b Joel, Pust. "Intuition: 2. The Epistemological Role of Intuitions". plato.stanford.edu. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ^ a b c Brown, James Robert; Fehige, Yiftach (2019). "Thought Experiments". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 29 October 2021.
- ^ S2CID 260640180.
- .
- ISBN 978-0-393-34878-1.
- ISBN 978-0-19-512913-7.
- S2CID 170519663.
- S2CID 143017404.
- S2CID 43496954.
- ^ Pust, Joel (2019). "Intuition: 3. Challenges and Defenses". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- S2CID 214337226.
- .
- ^ a b c d e f g Daniels, Norman (2020). "Reflective Equilibrium". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 28 February 2022.
- ^ .
- ^ S2CID 214652789.
- ^ a b McDermid, Douglas. "Pragmatism". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- JSTOR 2011902.
- ^ a b c Legg, Catherine; Hookway, Christopher (2021). "Pragmatism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- ^ James, William (1920). Collected essays and reviews. New York Longmans, Green and Co. p. 411.
- ^ "Evaluation of pragmatism". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 6 March 2022.
- ^ Gerhart], M. "TRANSCENDENTAL METHOD". New Catholic Encyclopedia.
- ISBN 978-0-19-873884-8.
- ^ a b c Stern, Robert (2021). "Transcendental Arguments". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 23 February 2022.
- ^ a b Bardon, Adrian. "Transcendental Arguments". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 23 February 2022.
- ^ "transcendental argument". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 23 February 2022.
- ISSN 0039-3681.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Knobe, Joshua; Nichols, Shaun (2017). "Experimental Philosophy". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-993531-4. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
- ^ a b c Mallon, Ron; Nichols, Shaun. "Experimental philosophy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
- ^ "Socrates - Plato". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
- ^ Byrd, Miriam; Byrd, Jeremy (2017). "The Socratic Method". The Value of Academic Discourse. Lanham, MD 20706, USA: Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 3–22.
- ^ Plato, Theaetetus 155 d (tr. Benjamin Jowett)
- ^ Aristotle, Metaphysics 982b12
- ISBN 978-3-11-043437-8.
- ^ S2CID 46923450.
- ^ S2CID 249572764.
- ^ Papineau, David (2021). "Naturalism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 22 February 2022.
- S2CID 244235536.
- ^ a b Asay, Jamin. "Truthmaker Theory". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
- ^ Ingram, David; Tallant, Jonathan (2018). Presentism. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
{{cite encyclopedia}}
:|website=
ignored (help) - ^ Sider, Theodore (2001). "2. Against Presentism". Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford University Press.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-230-59232-2.
- ^ a b Hill, R. Kevin. "Genealogy". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
- ^ S2CID 171199302.
- ^ Honderich, Ted (2005). "Philosophy". The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press.
- ISBN 978-3-11-032020-6.
- S2CID 171569977.
- S2CID 213082313.
- ^ Green, Christopher R. "Epistemology of Testimony". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
- ^ Leonard, Nick (2021). "Epistemological Problems of Testimony". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
- .
- hdl:11336/194769.