认识论中的信任

发布时间：2018-05-02 23:10

本文选题：信任 + 信任值得性　；参考：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：虽然信任与我们的现实社会、生活以及生存的环境息息相关,并且在我们的日常生活中具有普遍性,但令人惊奇的是,直到近期,信任话题在哲学中才开始获得了一定的关注度。传统上来看,由于信任固有的风险性和盲目性,知识论禁止了通过信任他人来获得真正的知识。而本文强调信任为我们获得知识起到了关键而不容忽视的作用,其中包括以证言为开端的科学知识以及非科学知识。本文围绕通过信任获得知识的这一方式,并且表明信任在获得知识的过程中的作用,以及以证言为开端,表明信任、证言和知识三者之间的关系,继而分别阐述信任在证言的还原论和非还原论中的地位和作用。证言的非还原论主张,同感官知觉、记忆、归纳推理相类似,证言也是一种自成一体的认识来源。其代表人物有托马斯·里德和爱德华·欣奇曼等。与此相反,证言的还原论主张,证言信念最终还原为诸如经验、感知、期待等基本的信念来获得辩护。其主要代表人物有大卫·休谟、伊丽莎白·弗里克等。其中,还原论者通过休谟的人类本性的概念和还原为自身经验的原则来判断证言的可信度。但在我看来,证言的还原论在一定程度上具有个体主义倾向。并且,信任在证言的还原论中似乎存在于"自我信任"的封闭解释,也就是说,信任的对象只局限在个人经验范畴之内,因此,在知识获得的途径中,证言还原为经验主义的局限性问题、信任自身所固有的不完备性、以及信任的盲目性问题,尤其在科学知识领域表现得更为突出。比如,一些不可观察以及不可还原的事物,如何还原到个人经验范围之内呢?还原论虽然在获得经验知识具备一定的可靠性,但是由于个体主义的弊端和局限性问题导致还原论无法解释更多的知识,继而最终导致走向非还原论的可能性,而该理论走向的结果,似乎是想要更为直接和完善的理论。证言认识论的非还原论,强调证言作为知识的独特来源。其中,以欣奇曼的权利还原论为主要代表,表明信任和证言知识的关系。在欣奇曼的看来,通过"告知"这一动作的性质,表明证言的状态作为独特的认识保证的来源,除了获得影响信任判断的证据,实际上,言说者只是简单地去邀请听者的信任。也就是说,当言说者告诉听者p这一过程中,言说者的行为意图赋予听者权利去相信p,而听者则获得一个初步的原因去相信p,在这里,得到的并非是关于p为真值的证据,而仅仅是对言说者表现形式的行为理解。在我看来,以欣奇曼为代表的非还原论暗含有还原论的内在成分,并且还原论和权利还原论具有共同的目标指向和基础。欣奇曼的权利还原论中权利的内涵及对其行为方式的理解暗含着还原论的经验成分,并且这表明还原论和非还原论对立双方趋向于融合的走向。因此,本文旨在表明信任在获取知识的方式中的重要作用,以及还原论和非还原论这两种进路的不足和局限性,正是这种共通性问题使得双方趋向于对立中的融合,我们也应该为其塑造一种内在的规范维度使信任得以持续发展。
[Abstract]:Although trust is closely related to our real society, life and the environment of existence and is universal in our daily life, it is surprising that, until recently, the topic of trust has begun to gain a certain degree of concern in philosophy. Traditionally, the knowledge theory has been banned from the inherent risk and blindness of trust. By trusting others to acquire true knowledge, this article emphasizes that trust plays a key and unneglecting role in acquiring knowledge, including scientific knowledge and non scientific knowledge that begins with testimony. This article focuses on the way of obtaining knowledge through trust and the role of trust in the process of acquiring knowledge. And with testimony as the beginning, it shows the relationship between trust, testimony and knowledge, and then expounds the status and role of trust in the reductionism and non reductionism of testimony. The non reductionism of testimony is similar to sensory perception, memory and inductive reasoning, and testimony is a self-contained source of cognition. The representative has the support of the three. Maas Reid and Edward Hinchman, and so on the contrary, the reductionism of the testimony asserted that the testimony belief eventually returned to the defense of basic beliefs, such as experience, perception, and expectation. The main representatives were David Hume, Elizabeth Flick and so on. Among them, the original theory, through the concept and reduction of Hume's human nature, was restored. It seems to me that the reductionism of testimony has a certain degree of individualism in my opinion, and trust appears in the closed interpretation of "self trust" in the redox theory of the testimony, that is to say, the object of trust is limited to the individual experience category, so that the knowledge is acquired. In the way, the testimony is reduced to the limitation of empiricism, the incompleteness inherent in the trust itself, and the blindness of trust, especially in the field of scientific knowledge. For example, how can some inobservable and non reductive things be restored to the scope of personal experience? Reductionism is gaining experience Knowledge has certain reliability, but because of the disadvantages and limitations of individualism, reductionism can not explain more knowledge, and eventually lead to the possibility of non reductionism, and the result of the theory seems to be a more direct and perfect theory. The non reductionism of the testimony epistemology, emphasizing the testimony as the testimony. A unique source of knowledge. Among them, the relationship between trust and testimony is mainly represented by the right reduction theory of hinhman. In the view of hinhman, the state of "informing" shows that the state of the testimony is the source of a unique cognitive guarantee, in addition to obtaining evidence that affects the judgment of trust, in fact, the speaker is simply a simple one. To invite the hearer's trust, that is to say, when the speaker tells the listener P this process, the speaker's behavior intention gives the listener the right to believe in P, and the listener obtains a preliminary reason to believe in P. Here, it is not the evidence of the true value of the P, but only the behavior understanding of the speaker's expression. It seems that the non reductionism, represented by hinhman, contains the inner component of the theory of reductionism, and the theory of reductionism and the theory of right reduction have common goal pointing and foundation. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to demonstrate the important role of trust in the way of acquiring knowledge, as well as the shortcomings and limitations of the two approaches of reductionism and non reductionism. It is this common problem that makes both sides tend to merge in opposition, and we should also create an intrinsic standard dimension for them. Trust continues to develop.

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：B017

【相似文献】