{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02157894736842105, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024210526315789474, 'mean_word_length': 5.212418300653595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Testimony and the Interpersonal

The past two decades have seen a marked growth in the philosophical literature on the epistemology of testimony. A guiding motivation for this growth, prominent in the earlier contributions to this literature, was a sense of neglect: the widespread dependence on testimony as a source of knowledge failed to cohere with lack of attention accorded to this source in what was then the extant philosophical literature. One influential account traces the source of this neglect to an individualist ideology pervasive in the post-Renaissance West that provoked a theoretical focus on individual cognitive capacities, such as perception and inference, at the expense of a comparable focus on those cognitive capacities whose exercise requires more than one individual (Coady 1992: p. 13). Neglect is a weak motivation for a body of literature; all it demands is increased attention to the neglected area, without placing any limitation on the character of that attention. One strand in more recent work on the epistemology of testimony is less motivated by this generic sense of neglect than by a particular puzzlement: there are certain features taken to be central to the epistemic process of acquiring knowledge via testimony that do not appear to cohere with familiar epistemic principles and norms. One influential account has it that the feature in question involves the role seemingly played by a distinctive kind of interpersonal relationship between testifier and testifiee in our everyday practices of justifying testimonial-based beliefs, a feature that is normally excluded from playing a role in epistemic discussions (Moran 2005). Simply paying attention to testimony alone will not dispel such philosophical puzzlement; it needs to be International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 2013 Vol. 21, No. 1, 92–110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2013.767508