I Survived Hurricane Katrina, 2005 – Flashcards

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time

• Hume is thought to be the archetype of a reductionist • He agrees that we base a lot of our knowledge on testimony • But he also notes that there is nothing about testimony per se, or a priori, that means we should accept it • In that case, our reasons for accepting testimony must be based on evidence: evidence that testimony is reliable • This is a reductionist position, because this can mean testimonial knowledge is just a particular case of knowledge via another method • For example, we might (ironically) use induction: o (Local) S has always been a good source of knowledge in the past, so I can justifiably treat S as a good source of knowledge now o (Global) I rely on testimony all the time, and it sees me right nearly all of the time