While attacking a person’s motivations does not, in itself, disprove their claim, there is the question of the impact of motivations on credibility. The discussion begins with a look at an inductive argument in which credibility is used to support a claim. This is, obviously enough, the classic argument from authority:
Premise 1: A makes claim C about Subject S.
Premise 2: A is an authority on subject S.
Conclusion: C is true.
The strength of this argument depends on the expertise of person A as well as such factors as any bias on the part of A and the consensus of other experts in the field. If the alleged authority’s expertise is sufficiently lacking, then a fallacious appeal to authority is committed. This is because the evidence fails to warrant the conclusion. It should be noted that even a non-fallacious argument of this sort is still relatively weak since the idea is that the claim is probably true because the authority probably has good reasons/evidence for the claim. While people often think this reasoning only applies to experts, such as doctors or scientists, in certain circumstances anyone could be considered a potential expert. Because of this, it might be preferable to have an argument from credibility rather than or in addition to the argument from authority.
One key factor in assessing the expert is their degree of bias in the matter. A person’s motivation to make a claim is relevant to this factor, since motivations can be biasing. For example, if the Democrats in the senate are motivated from vengeance to attack Kavanaugh, then they would be biased and thus lose a proportional degree of credibility. Not all motivations, obviously enough, damage credibility and the key question to ask about a motivation is whether it would unduly influence the person (in a way irrelevant to the truth) to make a claim.
If a person’s motivations are sufficiently biasing, then their credibility would be effectively eliminated. In such a case, an argument from authority based on them would be a fallacy. However, even in this situation it would not follow that their claim is false. To infer that a fallacy must have a false conclusion because it is a fallacy is itself a fallacy: the fallacy fallacy. As such, one way to look at this matter is that a person’s credibility can only drop to zero (no credibility). If such a person asserted a claim, this would provide zero support—leaving the support for or against the claim unchanged.
Embed from Getty Images
It is, however, interesting to consider the possibility of negative credibility: credibility so bad that it serves as evidence against a claim. This would make it, in effect, an anti-authority argument which might have the following form:
Premise 1: A makes claim C about Subject S.
Premise 2: A has negative authority/credibility on subject S.
Conclusion: C is false.
Back when I was in graduate school, we joked about this sort of thing and called this sort of person “a reliable indicator of the false.” On the face of it, there do seem to be cases in which this would be plausible reasoning. For example, a person who is consistently wrong or dishonest about a subject would seem to provide evidence against claims they make in that area. There is also the idea that if credibility can support a claim, then negative credibility can undercut a claim and help refute it.
Returning to the Democrats, if their motivations are extremely wicked, then it could be argued that they have negative credibility and are thus probably wrong or lying when they make claims about Kavanaugh. While this would certainly be appealing to those who loath the Democrats, there is the question of whether the idea of negative credibility makes sense and whether the proposed argument is good logic.
One obvious concern arises when one considers how the argument from authority works. As noted above, the idea is that one inductive concludes that an expert’s claim is probably true because they have good reasons/evidence for the claim that they make. As such, the idea is that there is a good argument behind the argument from authority. As to why people would use the argument from authority rather than the argument(s) behind it, the obvious answer is that non-experts might not understand the argument. For example, a person who does not understand advanced physics would probably not get the arguments used by experts in physics. In the case of the “anti-authority” argument, while there could be a terrible argument behind the claim that the person is using, this would not serve as evidence against the claim. This would, after all, be just the fallacy fallacy. But what about just focusing on credibility?
If you believe claims I make about my past because you find me credible, this is not a matter of there being an argument behind my claim that you trust I am using to back my claim. Rather, you would believe me because of relevant facts about me—such as my relative honesty, the accuracy of my memory, and so on. Roughly put, you would accept the claim as true because I say so and I am probably right and telling the truth. If you doubt my claims, then you would be doubting my credibility—that I am dishonest, that my memory is flawed, and so on. That is, I am probably either lying or just wrong. Obviously enough, consideration of motivations enters into this assessment.
If you suspected I had a wicked motivation to lie about my past, then you would certainly suspect that what I was saying was thus untrue. After all, if I did not have that motivation, then I would presumably tell the truth. While it would certainly be tempting to consider this good reasoning, there is still an obvious problem—while a wicked motivation would give a person a reason to lie about certain things, this motivation does not indicate whether they are lying about a particular claim (and thus be evidence the claim is false). To illustrate, imagine I am dragged before congress to answer questions and that I am full of wicked motivations. Lindsay Graham asks me if I orchestrated the accusations against Kavanaugh and I, obviously enough, deny this charge. While Graham would think of me as lacking credibility, my wicked motivations and lack of credibility in no way prove or even support the claim that I orchestrated the accusations. Also, if Graham asked me if I was mind-controlling the late-night comedians to make them mock Kavanaugh, I would deny that as well. No matter how wicked my motivations, they would not serve as evidence for that claim. What would be needed, as always, is positive evidence for the claim. As such, while wicked motivations impact credibility, they do not serve to prove (or disprove) claims.
Interesting how Blasey’s name appears in the title of this piece, nowhere else. Kavanaugh’s name, five times.
https://spectator.us/2018/10/grievance-studies/
Applies to academic institutions beyond “grievance studies” as well. I think you know that one that I mean.
What? Nothing about that has any relevance to the topic.
Also, even if grievance studies are BS, it hardly follows that their existence makes all the social sciences frauds. That is like saying that academic science is a corrupt fraud because there have been academic labs corrupted by outside money.
The topic is credibility. Take for example where you state “even if grievance studies are BS, it hardly follows that their existence makes all the social sciences frauds”, show where either I or what I quoted states that “ALL the social sciences” are frauds? So no, it is not “like saying that academic science is a corrupt fraud because there have been academic labs corrupted by outside money”. You’re just making crap up. Which speaks to your own credibility. Which is the subject at hand. It’s in the title of the OP. You know…Motivations & Credibility?
You know, I used to consider your ramblings here as sophistry at best. But given your devotion to these latest baseless accusations, your glaring and I would say purposely poor critical thinking in regard to Blasey’s and other accusers’ claims while picking apart Kavanaugh (across what, seven posts now?) has moved you from a sophist to an outright propagandist in my view. Or perhaps I should say propagandist wannabe/hanger on. You really are a disgrace to the academic profession. A profession that, outside of STEM…yet increasingly even inside of some STEM as well…has itself squandered its reputation to the extent that it has become corrupted by ideologues, created pulpits for frauds, and provided megaphones to radical inadequates.
Consider this, loosely associated with the topic of credibility.
None of Ford’s named witnesses have corroborated her story. Yet many still find her credible.
If just one witness corroborated her story, Kavanaugh would be done. Clearly, the odds are not in his favor.
These are all very tired arguments, aren’t they? I mean, we see them pop up here every once in a while, and I think we all have a pretty good handle on what a “proof” is, and why “credibility” and “authority”, while convincing, are not proof.
So what we have here, and what we will always have, is “opinion”;.
An authority says something about a claim, I take a second look. If I have a tumor on my colon and a surgeon tells me I need surgery – well, that surgeon is both an authority and someone who potentially has motivations that extend beyond my health. Perhaps he is so invested in his motivations that he believes that his recommendation is in my best interest and there is no other choice. He is very convincing during my consultation – he shows me the records of successful outcomes and discusses all the parameters and he is very, very smart and very, very able – but I’m still going to consult with a radiologist.
The Kavanaugh/Ford issue is nothing but a circus. The one thing that everyone always knew from the very beginning was that it would be very, very difficult – if not completely impossible – to find anything resembling definitive proof of anything one way or another. So one party makes a claim and appears very credible – but has no corroborating witnesses. Another party makes a claim but appears less credible, but has corroborating witnesses. Now we need to assess the credibility of those witnesses. And on and on.
In a court of law, the prosecution must make its case ‘beyond the shadow of a doubt”. Ain’t no way in Hell that’s going to happen here. The defense only has to provide that shadow of doubt. That shadow has been hanging over this proceeding since day one.
Was there anyone anywhere who was unable to predict what we’re facing today? The FBI investigation happened – it’s what the Democrats wanted. But it wasn’t long enough. It wasn’t extensive enough. They didn’t interview enough witnesses. And in the end, I no one’s opinion will be changed – not the public’s, not the Senate’s.
The outcome of this is a crapshoot, except for one very predictable one – and that is that this country will be even more divided than ever.
Right now, the big argument is about which side is more angry about this, and which “base” is more stirred to action to vote in the midterm elections, and what color the “wave” will be.
The ideology behind it is whether or not evidence today is merely a vestigial expression of white privilege, and whether or not it is acceptable to achieve one’s political goals through any means necessary, or if we actually do have a Constitution.
They are no doubt tired because they keep having to be made.
Assignment-produce a falsifiability statement
Hypothesis: Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Ford, and possibly harassed/ raped others.
Provide a falsifiability statement with this hypothesis.
Are student in Ivy League Schools not taught the most foundational concept of the scientific process?
What exactly would these highly educated people on campus, in the media, and in politics require to be convinced or at least skeptical of Ford’s claims? The only thing that seems to be the answer to that question is: If Ford never accused him at all.
Thus we have an unfalsifiable statement: Kavanaugh is guilty because Ford says so. Thanks for breaking Western civilization “highly educated Ivy League people”.
True, the burden of proof would rest on Blasey. If Kavanaugh did not assault her and there were no other witnesses watching him all night, it would be hard for him to prove that he did not assault her. As such, the evidence for or against the claim must hinge on the credibility of each witness, which would be assessed based on factors relevant to their honesty, accuracy, past behavior and so on. But, without corroborating evidence that specific claim against Kavanaugh would not be well supported.
Looked at as a criminal case, Kavanaugh has not been shown to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Looked at in terms of inductive reasoning, the arguments for the claim he assaulted her would have to be assessed as relatively week. As his defenders have pointed out, there were no other witnesses to the alleged event and no other corroborating evidence. Kavanaugh was, it seems, a very heavy drinking man with impulse control issues, but this does not prove that he assaulted her. It also does not prove that he is unfit now: like most of us, I know people who were impulsive, aggressive drunks in their youth who redeemed themselves and became much better people as adults.
I’ve run many search committees and if a candidate acted like Kavanaugh during an interview, I’d assess them as likely to be emotionally unfit for the profession. To be fair, I’ve been heavily influenced by Plato and Aristotle and think professionals need to keep their emotions under proper control. They also need to behave with decorum befitting the situation.
That said, as I wrote about Serena Williams, a person could be justified in righteous anger against injustice. I also admit that I have a bias against emotional displays, especially in professional contexts. I also get that that sort of anger and emotional weirdness seems incredibly appealing to Trump’s base-so Kavanaugh might have been a cool actor putting on a show.
You’re despicable.
This is what many people see:
https://ethicsalarms.com/2018/10/04/i-break-my-own-rule-and-publish-a-social-media-meme/
Both proponents of the Enlightenment and its critics are correct.
Enlightenment: Reason is good and better than guessing or dogma.
Counter-Enlightenment: Yeah, but why worship a faculty that so few humans rely on?
Aristotle had it right. While some listen to arguments and are moved by fine ideals, most must be ruled by pain.
Which is why police and soldiers carry weapons rather than copies of moral philosophy texts.
Here is a question. Can a white male ever again win the Democratic nomination for president?
Good question. It seems like Cory Booker wants to run in 2020. He’s proved himself to be a bad thinker, dishonest and unethical. He’ll do well as an Obama rerun, though he’s not quite as slick with the media.
Yes, Booker almost certainly wants to move into the oval office. His detractors might see him as a discount Obama. But, he is certainly better than Trump. Which is about as low a bar as exists.
We shall see. Because of demographic shifts, the answer might be “no.”