New essay on my Philosophy Site!

I added an epistemology essay on my philosophy site. This was one of my fav's at the U of MN and it won me a T-shirt with our Vice President saying "Go @!## Yourself" on it from my anti-Bush professor. Hmmmm. Anyway, you can tell by the preview paragraph below that it's gripping, controversial stuff, eh? I hope I don't crash the blogger server with the increased traffic. (more mainstream posts are coming, I promise)

Testimony and Knowledge:
Contrasting and Evaluating the Humean and Reidian Models

According to David Hume, "There is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men, and the reports of eye-witnesses and spectators." The majority of a person's knowledge is based on second-hand evidence (I read in a book that Mt. Fuji is in Japan) rather than first-hand experiences (I traveled to Japan and saw first-hand that Mt. Fuji exists). As we are now overly saturated in propositions in this internet-fueled age of information, it is increasingly imperative that we have a guideline to help decide when it is reasonable to believe a proposition based on testimony. If we are overly strict in what we allow ourselves to believe based on testimony, we risk shutting ourselves out of a world of valid information. If we are too loose in our standards, however, we risk gullibly accepting false propositions. Both David Hume and Thomas Reid have offered guidelines that could help us decide when we are justified in believing testimonial evidence. I will examine Hume's view on testimony in Part I, then I will set out the contrasting view of Reid in Part II. In Part III, I will critically assess both views before concluding in Part IV where I will give support for the better of the two views.

Got ya hooked, didn't I??? (are you picking up any sarcasm yet?)

To read the full article: http://myphilosophypapers.blogspot.com/2006/08/testimony-and-knowledge-contrasting.html