0x_liquid

This is so true. It also solves many problems in the epistemology of testimony in the western tradition. They need to catch up. And they are trying. Here is an example: Philosophy Keith Lehrer argues that the justification for testimony rests on trust. He argues that testimony leads to the acquisition of knowledge under “some circumstances but not all circumstances.” He maintains that testimony is “itself a source of evidence when the informant is trustworthy in the testimony. The testimony in itself does not constitute evidence otherwise.” The person who testifies does not need to be “infallible to be trustworthy”, but “the person testifying to the truth of what she says must be trustworthy in what she accepts and what she conveys.” Lehrer admits that trustworthiness is not sufficient for the conversion of the say-so of others into knowledge, he asserts that the person’s trustworthiness must be assessed (something he refers to as “truth-connected”) and that we must be trustworthy and reliable in our assessment.* Sound like a modern form of 'ilm al-hadīth. 🙃 * Lehrer, K. (2006). Testimony and Trustworthiness. In: Jennifer Lackey, J and Sosa, E, ed, The Epistemology of Testimony, pp. 145-157.