Asking the Right Questions, A Guide to Critical Thinking, 8th Ed

112 Chapter 8
Was the authority in a position to have especially good access to pertinent fact
example, was she a firsthand observer of the events about which she makes
claims? Or, has a newspaper reporter, for example, actually witnessed an event, or
has she merely relied upon reports from others? If the authority is not a firsthand
observer, whose claims is she repeating? Why should we rely on those claims? In
general, you should be more impressed by primary sources—or direct observers—
than by secondary sources, those who are relying on others for their evidence. Time
and Newsweek, for example, are secondary sources, while research journals such
as the Journal of the American Medical Association are primary sources.
Is there good reason to believe that the authority is relatively free of distortin
influences? Among the factors that can influence how evidence is reported are
personal needs, prior expectations, general beliefs, attitudes, values, theories,
and ideologies. These can subconsciously or deliberately affect how evidence
is presented. For example, if a public university president is asked whether
cuts in funding for education are bad for the university, he will in all probability
answer "yes" and give a number of good reasons. He may be giving an
unbiased view of the situation. Because of his position, however, we would
want to be concerned about the possibility that he has sought out only those
reasons that justify his own biases.
By having bias and prejudice, we mean the existence of a strong personal
feeling about the goodness or badness of something up front before we look
at the evidence, such that it interferes with our ability to evaluate evidence
fairly. Because many factors bias us in virtually all our judgments, we cannot
expect any authority to be totally unbiased. We can, however, expect less bias
from some authorities than from others and try to determine such bias by
seeking information about the authority's personal interest in the topic. For
example, we want to be especially wary when an authority stands to benefit
financially from the actions she advocates.
Because an authority can have a personal interest in an issue and still
make dependable claims, we should not reject a claim simply because we
suspect that the authority's personal interests may interfere with her fairness.
One helpful step we can take is to check to see whether authorities
with diverse attitudes, prior expectations, values, and interests agree. Thus
we need to ask the questions: "Has the authority developed a reputation for
frequently making dependable claims ? Have we been able to rely on this authority
the past ?"
You will want to be especially concerned about the quality of authorities
when you encounter factual claims on the Internet. When we go on-line,
virtually everyone becomes an "authority," because people are free to claim
whatever they wish, and there is no built-in process to evaluate such claims.
It is clearly a "buyers beware" situation!