So who's got the right picture? Human Comp with their ideal of intellectual autonomy, or Reed with his idea of intellectual solidarity? This just brings up the question of the value of intellectual autonomy. So why I think that it's valuable or a good thing to be intellectually autonomous? So let's look at some of the ways that human Kant might answer that question. Two interesting things they might say. The first is based on that Latin motto that Kant appeals to, sapere aude. Which means literally dare to be wise. But a little bit less literally you could translate it, dare to know. So, if we follow that slightly less literal translation. Kant's suggestion is that the person whose beliefs and opinions are based on testimony. Doesn't really have knowledge. She doesn't really know the stuff that she bases on testimony. So when he asks us to dare to know. He's saying dare to base our beliefs on something other than testimony. Because that's the only way we're ever gonna have knowledge. So you might think that sounds completely wrong. Obviously, you can know stuff on the basis of testimony. So, imagine an old friend calls you up and says that she's in town for the weekend. You now know that she's in town for the weekend. So there's obviously a sense in which you can get knowledge through testimony. There's a philosophical tradition that goes back to Plato. On which genuine or real knowledge requires something more. It requires what Plato required the ability to give an account. So, the ability to explain or situate the knowledge in some broader body of information. And that's something you might think you can't really get from testimony. That kind of understanding, or as Khan might put it wisdom can be only be gotten on your own. You can't get it from someone else. So, think of the difference here. Between someone whose beliefs about The Star Ferry in Hong Kong. Are based on only reading a Wikipedia article about the Star Ferry. Whereas, someone who lived in Hong Kong their whole life and rides the Star Ferry every day. So there's a very real sense in which you might wanna say. The person who's ridden the Star Ferry and lives in Hong Kong. Knows about the Star Ferry, in a way that the person who's merely read about it on Wikipedia. Doesn't really know anything at all. She doesn't really have have genuine or real knowledge. So if we go with that thought, we're gonna be able to explain the value of intellectual autonomy. The intellectually autonomous person is gonna be the only person who's in the market. For getting knowledge or understanding or wisdom or whatever you like. So the second way. You might go about defending intellectual autonomy, is by appeal to some social and political considerations. So if you think about our policy of trusting other people's testimony. One thing to keep in mind about it is that it has certain conservative implications. So people have a tendency to let their opinions be shaped. By their communities to believe what people around them to believe. And a particular thing about to the extent to which people have a tendency to have their opinions shaped. By the community they grow up in. People tend to believe what their parents tell them or what other people in their community tell them. And this means, that we tend to inherit our religious and our political and our moral views. From previous generations, or from people around us. So, one way of putting the question about the value of intellectual autonomy is to ask about the value of this tendency. Are we fans of this tendency? Do we like it? Or, are we more skeptical of it? Reed, given his views. About the naturalness of trusting human testimony, is necessarily gonna be a fan of this tendency. To inherit views from one's community. Whereas, Hume being skeptical of the force of human testimony is not going to be nearly as much of a fan. So how do we answer this question? Well, how you answer this question is gonna depend on how you feel about conservatism and intellectual matters. So if you value progressive and innovative breaks with tradition and rejecting conventional wisdom. New ideas overthrowing the old ideas, you're gonna side with Hume and Kant, and the fans of intellectual autonomy. Whereas if you value tradition and the conservation of community beliefs. You're gonna side with Reid and the fans of intellectual solidarity. So in any event, these are the issues, I think that are at stake. When we ask this question about the extent to which we should trust other people's testimony.