Might the problem with Graham's counterexample be that it is too coarse-grained when it comes to "trustworthiness?" Ie, Susan might be generally trustworthy and Jim might trust her in general, but with respect to distinguishing between Judy and Trudy Susan is not trustworthy (because she cannot tell them apart). So because she is not trustworthy/reliable in this respect, Jim cannot come to know anything about Judy/Trudy from testimony by Susan? So even if Jim doesn't know that Susan can't tell Judy/Trudy apart Susan is still unreliable/untrustworthy (if Judy had not broken the vase and Trudy had instead, Susan would still claim that Judy had broken the vase) and having faith/trust in an unreliable person is not a way to gain knowledge? Similarly for CB : even though NCB doesn't know that CB is colorblind (presumably CB doesn't know this either), CB is still in fact unreliable with respect to the color of red things and green things and so NCB's trust in CB's judgments is misplaced and not a way for NCB to come to know something about the color of the balls. Maybe?
Reply
Leave a comment