Judging the credibility of

sources skilfully
 Group Members
 Avash Swar 177015
 Ekta Subedi 177114
 Nikita Pradhan 177079
 Anisha Gyawali 177036
 Megha Raj Bhandari 177084
 Abhinav Raut 177085
• Credibility is the degree to which one believes and trusts a
person or entity.

• The quality of being trustworthy or power of inspiring belief.

• When one tells a lie and gets caught, this is an example of

when one’s credibility is damaged.
 Example:
When someone needs financial advice, he can do a google
search on it but it is not sure he will be able to find a credible
source.

Whereas, at the same time, if he has a friend or someone he

knows has a financial background like someone in a good
standing, that person can be a credible source that can be more
reliable and helpful than other sources.
 Why is Credibility important?

• People will trust one’s judgement

• Attract enthusiastic and committed followers
• Forms a pool of scopes
• Required for selling ideas.
• To become a persuasive speaker.
 Internet and Credibility

• We heavily rely on the internet for information.

• Example: If we want to know about the number of people

affected by COVID-19 we just google it up and thousand of
results appear.

• Since anyone can put anything on the internet, it can be

very difficult to distinguish good sources of information
from poor ones.
• For example: If you want to find out the number of people infected
by COVID-19 in Nepal, you google it and scan through the
authoritative sites such as World Health Organisation(WHO),
Ministry of Health and Population Organisation(MoHP)

• To find reliable information on the internet – and to do so as

quickly as possible – will usually require thinking in the ways that
will be further discussed in this chapter.
 COVID-19 Context Example:
• At such a time, it is normal for people to panic but what has been fueling
this panic to a greater extent is the spread of misinformation regarding the
virus.

• Moreover, social media sites such as Facebook, Whatsapp, Viber have been
a prime tool for spread of misinformation. Some people have even used
the situation to benefit themselves.

• Thus, it is important to know the credibility of the source or person from

where you are seeking information.
 Importance of this Chapter

• To learn about:
• How certain is it claimed to be?
• Does the context of the claim influence its acceptability?
• Does it require expertise/research to decide?
• Is it widely known or believed?
• How well does it fit with our other beliefs?
• Is it from a credible source?
• Beliefs - based on what other people tell us

• have to be taken on trust, because we are not in a position to

check it ourselves.

• critical thinkers cant do the same.

• Two extreme attitudes to credibility (equally unhelpful)

• : to trust EVERYTHING or NOTHING.

• Example :

• we believe some people more than others, but need - REFINED JUDGMENTS.
Credibility Assessment : An example of
a situation

What to do?

Punish both boys due to doubts about who started it.

Would this be fair?

Factors of credibility
 Reputation
• What we know about a person or organization’s track record for
trustworthiness,

• Often generated from other peoples’ assessments (whether experts or

ordinary people).

• Also the reputation of a newspaper, other publication, broadcaster, or website.

•
 Ability to get information
• ways that people may or may not have been able to access what
they claim to know through experience: ability to observe, ability
to gain access, and ability to recall.

• unreliable memory or imprecise memory = affect on the credibility

of their claims.
• Observe – difference in primary and secondary source
• On average, primary = more worthy of credibility, but…
 Vested interest
• something that a person has to gain or lose from a certain outcome.

• important to keep vested interests in perspective (most people have

some vested interests in both directions)

• maintaining a social reputation as reliable, and – if they are a

professional – for maintaining their career prospects.
 Corroboration
• Helpful to compare information provided when compared with other
sources. (successfully evaluate our sources, especially in regards to
accuracy.)

• strengthens our conclusions (especially in a historical argument)

• Note: Don’t need to use the same words.

 Expertise/training
• normally adds substantially to their credibility

• We rely on expertise constantly

• Consider: whether expertise is genuine + whether it is relevant.

• the moment judgment starts to involve combination or comparison with

areas other than expertise, it may actually become

• less reliable
Nature of the claim itself
 Neutrality or bias
• according to their overall approach to the topic and the kind of
interpretation made.

• Impartial, or biased

• biased approach will limit people’s interpretation of the facts.

• Bias is not vested interest, they may only go together in some cases.

• Example:
Questions about the person/source
whose credibility we wish to judge
A.Do they have the relevant expertise ?

• Experience

• Knowledge

• Formal qualifications
• Suppose you are walking in the mountains with an expert
geologist when you find some strange rocks. ‘Yes,’ she says,
‘it is not so very unusual to find evidence of volcanic
activity in these mountains because that is how they were
formed millions of years ago.’
• Then she goes on to tell you that the bird you can see
gliding in the distance is probably an Eagle. (you are
not able to figure which type of bird it is yourself.)
• Will you believe everything she said? Why / why not?
• In the normal course of events you believe what she says
about the rocks because of her expertise – because she has
the experience and knowledge to know what she is talking
about.

• For her second statement about the bird, you may have less
reason to believe her unless you also know that she is an
expert on birds too (or at least on the birds in that area).
• Sufficient experience and knowledge more credibility

• However, doesn’t guarantee the truth of what they say

• The criterion can be stated as follows:

• The person should have the background training and experience

appropriate for making the statement. (Ennis, 1996, pp. 58, 59)
 B. Do they have the ability to observe
accurately?
• Eyesight
• Hearing
• Proximity to event
• Absence of distractions
• Appropriate instruments, etc
• There is a crossroads with traffic lights on both roads and there has just been a
collision between a red car and a white one (all as shown on the diagram). The
driver of the white car accuses the driver of the red car of having jumped the
red light; the red car driver denies this. A mother and child were waiting to
cross the road as shown on the diagram; the mother says the red car driver did
jump the red light and the child says he didn’t. A policeman was also watching
the junction and he says the red car driver did jump the red light.

• How can you judge their statements?

• Who would you believe/ disbelieve?

• First of all, their abilities to observe should be assessed.
• In this case, it is important that all the witnesses have good eyesight, were not
under the influence of drugs which distort perception (like alcohol), had a
clear view of what was happening on the junction, and were attending to it.
• To the extent that these conditions are not fulfilled, the credibility of a
witness’s evidence is reduced.
• Eg: mother’s diverted attention due to the child’s tantrum; either of the driver
under the influence of alcohol/ drugs
• If found under alcoholic influence, use of appropriate instruments
 • Assuming all the witnesses had good eyesight, were not under the influence
of any drugs, had a clear view of what was happening on the junction and
were attending to it (except the child, who was having a tantrum), who would
you believe?

• The driver of the white car, the policeman, and the mother.
 C. Does their reputation suggest they are
reliable?
Someone with a long criminal record who is well known to be a
habitual liar is not believed to be innocent when he is found in
possession of a stolen TV, which he denies stealing. His reputation
for dishonesty means that his claim of innocence is not reliable
and his credibility is very low in a situation like this.
• BBC - widely regarded as a reliable source of news and
information about world affairs
• Reputation for accuracy - good reason to accept BBC news
report
• Does not mean BBC is always right but that this reputation is
based on general agreement that it has mostly been right in
the past.

• Having a good reputation for reliability in one domain

doesn’t ensure the credibility of the source in another
domain.
D. Does the source have a vested interest or
bias?

Suppose you are considering buying a second-hand car,

but you know very little about cars. The salesperson tells
you that the car is in a good condition, is a good bargain,
and suitable for you. Would you believe her and buy the
car? Why/ why not?
Probably not because she is paid by commission on the sales she
makes, so she has a financial interest in selling the car rather
than in giving strictly truthful information.
• In the same case, suppose you have a friend who is
urging you not to buy the car because he hates cars of
that brand after having been injured by one in an
accident. (Accident was not caused by technical issues
of the car).

• Here, the source/ the friend has bias against the cars of
that brand.
You are listening to a court case in which Ron, whose car collided
with another, is accused of driving at twice the speed limit in the
city and with three times the legal limit of alcohol in his blood. Ron
denies the charges but the doctor who attended the accident tells
the court that Ron smelled very strongly of alcohol and that blood
tests showed alcohol in his blood at three times the legal limit.
Who is credible and why?
• The doctor is more credible. The doctor has no vested interest
or bias towards Ron and is simply doing his/her job.
• However, Ron has vested interest in denying the charges.
He has much to lose if he is proved guilty.

• In general, the credibility of an informant/ source is

weakened if they appear to have an incentive to do
something other than simply tell the truth.
The circumstances/context in which the
claims are made

The justification a source offers in support

of the claim.
 Questions about the
circumstances/context in which
the claim is made
• Similar claims can be made but in very different
circumstances,

For example: eye witnessing certain crime and narrating it

to:
 Friends
 Court
• A report about medical cure published by a medical
journal newspaper holds more weight than a similar
report published in any other newspaper,

• we tend to attach less credence to claims which are

remote in time from the events to which they refer
(though this is not always the case).
• We are watching an evening TV news program in which a
reporter is describing the government’s new education
policy, following a news conference on the subject given
by a Government spokesperson earlier in the day.

• Should we believe the news report, and why or why not?

To what extent do we think the report is, or is not, a
reliable source of information on this subject?
• Answer:
• A news report on a reputable news program warrants far more
credence than a similar story overheard in a bar, just as evidence given
in a court of law carries more credence than the same claims made in
the course of gossiping to neighbors.

• In this case, of course, the source of the report is a government

spokesperson who will want to portray the policy in the best possible
light, so that may raise questions about its credibility, but that is
another issue.
Questions about the justification a source
offers in
support of the claim
• Unusual Claims,

• If someone can offer no

justification for what they claim,
one has little reason to take it
seriously or to give it any
credence.
• If they can give reasons, grounds or evidence, these will often affect the
decision as to whether it is reasonable to believe what they say.

• However, there are several different kinds of evidence/reasons people

can produce and these need to be assessed differently in deciding
credibility.
 ‘I witnessed X’ versus ‘she told me
X’
• ‘seen it with his own eyes’ or otherwise perceived it with one of
his other senses;

• He claims to have personal, 'direct' or 'first hand' knowledge of

what is reported.

• sometimes when one’s justification is that someone else told you,

this may make it unreliable (or unreliable for some purposes).
• Explosion in the World Trade Center in Newyork as reported by CNN
but not witnessed myself.

• Jones is accused of shooting his wife and that Mrs. Smith may have
been an eye witness.

• There are different standards of proof for different purposes.

 ‘Primary’ versus ‘secondary’
sources
• The ability to observe is relevant to the distinction between primary
sources and secondary sources.

• Primary sources tend to be more worthy of credibility in reporting an

event than secondary ones but can be unreliable.

• Secondary sources may sometimes give a more comprehensive picture

with greater expertise and neutrality
 Nepal- India boarder issue
• Primary Source • Secondary Source

• Documents written by • We could read a modern historian’s

people who experienced account of them. The modern historian
those events and wrote makes no pretence to have lived through
about them at the time, the experiences.
‘Direct’ justification/evidence versus
‘circumstantial’
evidence
The courts make a distinction between ‘direct’ evidence and
‘circumstantial’ evidence.

Direct evidence: witness/ eye- slight oriented:

Factors Considered:
competency
Compellability
level of witness independence
witness credibility based on assessment of physical limitations, etc.
Circumstantial Evidence: appropriate facts, reasons, etc.
 does not by itself prove the offence, but through interpretation of the
circumstances and in conjunction with other evidence.

Example:
Jones is accused of murdering his wife by shooting her.
 Justifying a claim by direct reference to
credibility
considerations
• Defending and Refuting Knowledge Claims giving credible considerations.

• using credibility considerations to justify the claim.

• Because justification being provided with reasons for accepting by experts and
biased group respectively.
 Questions about the nature of the
claim which influence its credibility
It is very unlikely, given other things we know;
or is it plausible and easy to believe?
• Two situations

• If a friend tells you that she just had coffee with some mutual
friends.

• If she says that she had coffee with Barak Obama.

• Absence of a much fuller story and some evidence

The more unlikely it is that some claim is true, given what else
we know, the less its credibility and the more we shall need
persuading before we believe it.
Is it a basic observation statement or
an inferred judgement?

“I saw a man open the car door using a coat hanger and drive
the car away.”

VS

“I saw a man steal the car.”

• I saw a man open the car door using a coat hanger and drive the car
away. (Observation)

• Description of what s/he saw

• I saw a man steal the car. (Inference)

• S/he goes beyond what s/he actually saw and is inferring that the
• man’s actions amounted to theft.
There is a kid is in the water or
There is a goat is standing next to the
water

vs

The goat pushed the kid into the water

when he/she was trying to pick up
his/her sailboat
Is it a basic observation statement or an
inferred
judgement?
Credibility is easier to attach to observation because inferred
judgement involves opinion, which may or may not be backed
by evidence.
Is there corroboration
from other sources?
• Corroborating evidence is evidence that tends to support
a proposition that is already supported by some initial
evidence, therefore confirming the proposition.

• Main Questions to ask when Corroborating

• What are other possible sources?
• What sources are most reliable?
• What do other sources say?
• Do the sources agree? If not, why?
For example, Sita, a witness, testifies that she saw Ram
drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile, Sam,
another witness, testifies that when he examined Ram's
car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. 
Summary
1. Questions about the person/source:

(a) Do they have the relevant expertise (experience, knowledge and,

perhaps, formal qualifications)?

(b) Do they have the ability to observe accurately (eyesight, hearing,

proximity to event, absence of distractions, appropriate instruments,
skill in using instruments)?

(c) Does their reputation suggest they are reliable?

(d) Does the source have a vested interest or bias?

2. Questions about the circumstances/context in which the claim is
made.

3. Questions about the justification a source offers in support of the

claim:

(a) Did the source ‘witness X’ or was he ‘told about X’?

(b) Is it based on primary or secondary sources?

(c) Is it based on direct or circumstantial evidence?

(d) Is it supported by direct reference to credibility considerations?

4. Questions about the nature of the claim:

(a) Is it very unlikely, given other things we know; or is

it very plausible and easy to believe?

(b) Is it a basic observation statement or an inferred

judgment?

5. Is there corroboration from other sources?

 References
• https://www.middlewaysociety.org/critical-thinking-21-credibility-of-
sources/
• https://www.historyskills.com/source-criticism/analysis/corroboration/
• Fisher, A.E. (2011). Critical Thinking: An Introduction
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corroborating_evidence#An_example_of_
corroboration