So we can now see that Hume and Reid had really completely different pictures of how human testimony works. So, for read there's an innate hard wired principle that makes us trust other people. But for Hume, we have to have evidence that other people are likely to be right before we can trust them. So we've got innate trust in testimony on Reid's side. We've gotta have independent evidence that the person testifying is likely to be right on Hume's side. So which of these two pictures is right? Which one should we accept? Here's why Reid thought his picture was the right one. He asked us to imagine small children and think about the extent to which they trust the testimony of other people. And he points out that it looks like the principle of credulity is strongest in small children. They're very much disposed to trust the testimony of other people. They'll believe whatever you tell them. And Reid thought this was incompatible with Hume's picture of testimony. So here's what Reid said. If credulity were the effect of reasoning and experience as Hume claims, it must grow up and gather strength, in the same proportion as reason and experience do. But, if it is the gift of Nature, it will be strongest in children, and limited and restrained by experience. And the most superficial view of human life shows that the last is really the case and not the first. So in other words, if Hume's picture were right the principle of credulity would be weakest in children because they don't yet have any experience of the reliability of other people's testimony. But in fact the principals really strongest in children who have no experience at all of the reliability of other people. They're the most trusting where adults are skeptical and less trusting. This the opposite of what you'd expect if humans picture were right so rather than being based on experience he re-concludes our trust must be based a gift of nature, as he puts it. Here's a way of setting out his argument. We'll look at what main assumptions involved are. First he assumes the principle of credulity is strongest in children. Second, he points out that if our trust in testimony were based on experience as Hume claims it is, it would be weakest in children. And on that basis he concludes the principle of credulity is innate and not based on experience. And there's a bit of a wrinkle here, you might have noticed this because it looks like Reid is talking about what children in fact do. he's talking about the fact that they do trust other people's testimony. Whereas it looks like Hume was talking about what people ought to do. They ought not trust testimony without evidence that other people are likely to be right. But I think we can appreciate Reid's point here if we take him to be saying look children trust other people's testimony, they don't have any evidence that other people are likely to be right. And it doesn't seem to be anything wrong with that. It's kind of counter intuitive to say that children aught not be so trusting. In fact Reid claims if we did abide by hume's principles, then he says no proposition that is uttered in discourse would be believed and such distrust and incredulity would deprive us of the greatest benefits of society. And place us in a worse condition than that of the savages. Scary stuff, if we were as skeptical and doubting as Hume suggests that we should be. So, I think that's the big dispute between Hume and Reid on the matter of testimony. Is trusting other people something innate, as Reid argues, or do we need evidence of the reliability of testimony before we're going to trust it as Hume claims. An interesting thing is that Hume and Reid also seem to disagree on the reliability of human testimony and the extent to which testimony really is a reliable source of information, about how truthful people really are. So in addition to the principle of credulity, Reid also said that there's a principle of veracity. He defined it as a propensity to speak the truth so as to convey our real sentiments. And he went on to say that lying is doing violence to our nature. So just as we're naturally trusting creatures, Reid says, we're also naturally honest creatures. So Hume would've challenged this. He would've challenged this idea that we're hardwired for honesty. And the way he would've challenged it is by appealing to all the different kind of situations in which human beings end up testifying falsely. Three kinds of examples that you can find it possess say on miracles. How we first points out that people often have a motive to lie when they have an interest in what they affirm because there are advantages he says to starting an imposture among an ignorant people. So think here of the kind of lies that politicians tell. Second he says, human beings are prone to believe the tales of travelers because human beings generally find the feeling of surprise and wonder agreeable. So when someone tells you this crazy story from some far way land, you enjoy that feeling of surprise and wonder and it inclines towards believing what they're saying. And in Hume's day there were surprising stories coming into Europe from all over the world, a lot of them completely inaccurate. Third, Hume/s says that human beings are prone to testify, to asset things, regardless of whether they have good evidence for what they are saying. Because of, quote, the pleasure of telling a piece of news so interesting of propagating it. And of being the first reporters of it. Gossip and rumor, this is how they spread. We enjoy telling other people news, even when we don't have very good evidence for it. So what we can see is that human read have a very different pictures of how we relate to one another, when it comes to our belief and opinions. And how we ought to relate to one another when it comes to our beliefs and opinions. So for Reid, there's this innate hard wired principle of credulity and this innate hard wired principle of veracity. It means that we're naturally trusting and naturally honest creatures. Testimony of others is a natural, an indispensable, source of information. Where as for Hume the picture's much more problematic. Testimony isn't always reliable and we can only trust testimony we've got evidence that the person testifying is likely to be right. So in a really important sense for Hume, we're always left on our own when it comes to forming beliefs and opinions.
