The claim and its source
There are two arenas in which we assess credibility (as indicated in the phishing story).
-Claims themselves.
- Claims sources.
> ex. If we're told that ducks can communicate by quacking in Morse code, we dismiss the claim immediately. Such claims lack credibility no matter where they come from. [They have no initial plausibility] But the claim that ducks mate for life is not at all outrageous, it might be true; it's a credibible claim. Whether we should believe it depends on its source; if we read it in a bird book or heard it from a bird expert, we are much more likely to believe it than if we hear it from our editor.
> There are degrees of credibility and incredibility; they are not all-or-nothing kinds of things, whether talking about claims or sources.
- ex. Consider the claim that the president of the U.S. has been hypnotized and is acting completely under the spell of wizards who are hiding in warehouses in suburban Washington, D.C. This requires a stretch of the imagination; it is very unlikely. However, unlikely, it is more credible than the claim that the president is not human at all but a robot constructed and controlled by aliens from another galaxy.
> People vary their credibility just as do the claims they offer.
- ex. If the next-door neighbor you've always liked is arrested for bank robbery, his denials will probably seem credible to you, but he loses credibility if it turns out he owns a silencer and a .45 automatic with the serial numbers removed. Similarly, a knowledgeable friend who tells us about an investment opportunity has a bit more credibility if we learn he has invested his own money in the idea. [At least we could be assured he believed the information himself.] On the other hand, he has less credibility if we learn he will make a substantial commission from our investment in it.
>Therefore, there are always two questions to be asked about a claim with which we're presented.
-First, when does a claim itself lack of credibility; that is, when does its content present a credibility problem?
-Second, when does a source of a claim lack credibilty?
A claim lacks inherent credibility to the extent that it conflicts with what we have observed or what we think we know-our background information- or with other credible claims.
-Claims themselves.
- Claims sources.
> ex. If we're told that ducks can communicate by quacking in Morse code, we dismiss the claim immediately. Such claims lack credibility no matter where they come from. [They have no initial plausibility] But the claim that ducks mate for life is not at all outrageous, it might be true; it's a credibible claim. Whether we should believe it depends on its source; if we read it in a bird book or heard it from a bird expert, we are much more likely to believe it than if we hear it from our editor.
> There are degrees of credibility and incredibility; they are not all-or-nothing kinds of things, whether talking about claims or sources.
- ex. Consider the claim that the president of the U.S. has been hypnotized and is acting completely under the spell of wizards who are hiding in warehouses in suburban Washington, D.C. This requires a stretch of the imagination; it is very unlikely. However, unlikely, it is more credible than the claim that the president is not human at all but a robot constructed and controlled by aliens from another galaxy.
> People vary their credibility just as do the claims they offer.
- ex. If the next-door neighbor you've always liked is arrested for bank robbery, his denials will probably seem credible to you, but he loses credibility if it turns out he owns a silencer and a .45 automatic with the serial numbers removed. Similarly, a knowledgeable friend who tells us about an investment opportunity has a bit more credibility if we learn he has invested his own money in the idea. [At least we could be assured he believed the information himself.] On the other hand, he has less credibility if we learn he will make a substantial commission from our investment in it.
>Therefore, there are always two questions to be asked about a claim with which we're presented.
-First, when does a claim itself lack of credibility; that is, when does its content present a credibility problem?
-Second, when does a source of a claim lack credibilty?
A claim lacks inherent credibility to the extent that it conflicts with what we have observed or what we think we know-our background information- or with other credible claims.