Credibility vs truth

This year we have a new subject called Thinking Skills, were we study Critical Thinking, which is used to analyze arguments (set of reasons which are used to persuade someone and support a conclusion). For arguments to work, we need evidence to support our point of view. All the same, it is important that we always judge the credibility of the evidence.

For this, we need to go back to the source form where we took the evidence and use credibility criteria. For example, “neutrality”, which consists of a source which doesn’t take sides and doesn’t manipulate evidence. We can also find the”vested information”, which is the source that gains something from taking a particular side, therefore they may change or not the information. The “bias” consists on favouring a particular side, which reduces the credibility. Then, we can find the ”expertise”, which is evidence highly credible due to the knowledge of a source, who can be doctors, scientists, etc. However, as knowledge changes through time, they may make mistakes, so they are only credible when they are specifically needed. “Reputation” refers to a person or an organization that has more credibility according to their reputation and status. For example, Martin Luther King has an outstanding reputation, so he is believed as a good source. Nevertheless, reputation doesn't mean that the information is accurate. The most known source is the”eyewitness accounts”, which consists of someone observing an event. However, their credibility can be lost due to the fact that through retelling their story, some details are lost and it has to be judged if there was anything obstructing the view of the observer, or if he/she was distracted by something. “Corroboration” consists of pieces of evidence that are connected and end up creating a line of events because they all suggest the same thing. Although this may look like a good way of evaluating the evidence, it depends if the story which has been told is true or false. In this way, a source may be correlative, because all the pieces of evidence connect with each other, but may not be correct. The “Selectivity” Is extremely important when it comes to pick the evidence. Sometimes just a particular side of the story is shown in the evidence selected, which reduces the credibility. Finally, it is important to analyze the “context”, the setting and the situation in which the evidence is produced.  In conclusion, it is very important to always analyze the source of evidence, so as to identify factors which may have influenced the source. For this, many credibility criteria can be combined. Over all, it is important to remember that evidence may be believable and credible, but it can either be true or false.