On the Rationality of our Response to Testimony

This is an author produced version of a paper published in Synthese. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination. ABSTRACT The assumption that we largely lack reasons for accepting testimony has dominated its epistemology. Given the further assumption that whatever reasons we do have are insufficient to justify our testimonial beliefs, many conclude that any account of testimonial knowledge must allow credulity to be justified. In this paper I argue that both of these assumptions are false. Our responses to testimony are guided by our background beliefs as to the testimony as a type, the testimonial situation, the