This question has been bothering me for some time. Basically: what epistemological reason makes valid my trusting of other people’s observations of reality? My concern is with mainly, if not solely, research data, news reporting, and the like. What with all the lying that has infested these areas, how can I trust (or find out) what they are telling me to be true, or that it is false?
The answer I received so far is that you can trust someone if you have no reason not to trust them, that they are innocent until proven guilty and one needs a reason to question their credibility. I agree with this response, but it is not satisfactory for me. Or does it happen to be the only reason available?
In short, how does one find a person to be credible or incredible?
In short, how does one find a person to be credible or incredible?
Usually, I pay close attention to exactly what they say, looking to the logical structure of their statements. Do they present credible statements of fact and unify them logically to reach a reasonable conclusion? Or do they simply assert a position? I only believe people who know their stuff, and it’s not that hard to give evidence that you know your stuff, that you aren’t just dealing in floating abstractions.
Check against your own knowledge. Lab work is vital to learn physics and chemistry, history for humanities subjects.
Check for internal consistency. Knowing logic and all the kinds of fallacies and rhetorical techniques enables this.
Concept reduction is a specifically powerful Objectivist technique in applied epistemology integrating the two approaches above
If you can’t do any of these, quarantine it off until you can investigate it properly.
I am both educated and experienced, and reccognize how news media completely botch reporting any mildy complicated topic when I have relevant knowledge. I drew the conclusion that new media cannot be trusted in general, beyond showing pictures of plane crashes and such. I do not have a television and rarely get newspapers, because I got tired of sorting out truth from lies. I consider most sources not credible until proven otherwise.
Usually, I pay close attention to exactly what they say, looking to the logical structure of their statements. Do they present credible statements of fact and unify them logically to reach a reasonable conclusion? Or do they simply assert a position? I only believe people who know their stuff, and it’s not that hard to give evidence that you know your stuff, that you aren’t just dealing in floating abstractions.
Hmm. Yes, I seem to had forgotten that point.
Concept reduction is a specifically powerful Objectivist technique in applied epistemology integrating the two approaches above.
Will do. I haven’t read Introduction to Objectivism Epistemology yet, but it is next on my list in my personal studies as soon as I finish with OPAR.
I consider most sources not credible until proven otherwise.
Ha. I’m the same way. When I get the paper I only read the opinion section (I enjoy mentally critiquing the letters) and the comics.