RELIABILITY OF AUTHORITIES

We can approach the assessment of reliability by thinking about the characteristics of the
person who is giving information. We have to think about the circumstances which could
make it likely that what someone said was untrue. Before reading further, try to write a
list of characteristics or tendencies of other people which would make you think that the
information they were giving you was not reliable.
Reputation
If one of your acquaintances has a record of being untruthful, then you are much more
cautious about accepting their statements as true than you would be about believing
someone whom you thought had never lied to you. For example, if someone who always
exaggerates about his success with women tells you that at last night’s disco several women
chatted him up, you will be inclined to be sceptical. The habitual liar is an obvious case of
someone whose statements are unreliable.
Vested interest
Of course, people who are not habitual liars may deceive others on occasions. They may do
so because they stand to lose a great deal – money, respect or reputation – by telling the
truth. So when we have to make judgements about the reliability of people we know to
be generally truthful, and about people with whom we are not acquainted, we should bear
this consideration in mind. That is not to say that we should assume people are being
untruthful, simply because it would be damaging to them if others believed the opposite
of what they say. But when we have to judge between two conflicting pieces of information
from two different people, we should consider whether one of those people has a
vested interest in making us believe what they say. For example, if an adult discovers two
children fighting, then each child has a vested interest in claiming that the other started
the fight. But the evidence of a third child who observed the fight, but knows neither of
the protagonists, could be taken to be more reliable in these circumstances.
Relevant experience or expertise
If someone was not in a position to have the relevant knowledge about the subject under
discussion, then it would be merely accidental if their statements about the subject were
true. There are a number of circumstances which prevent people from having the relevant
knowledge. The subject under discussion may be a highly specialised subject which is
understood only by those who have had appropriate education or training. We would not
expect reliable information on brain surgery to be given by people who have had absolutely
no medical training. This is why in many areas of knowledge we have to rely on what
experts say. It is important to note, however, that being an expert, no matter how eminent,
in one field, does not confer reliability on topics beyond one’s area of expertise.
People who are not experts can read about specialised subjects, and pass on information
to us about such subjects, so we do not have to disbelieve people simply because they are
not experts. But we would be wise to ask the source of their information. For example, if
someone told us that they had read that a new car had better safety features than any other
model, we should regard the information as more reliable if it came from a consumer
magazine or a motoring association than if it was a report of a comment made by a famous
person who owned such a car.
Another circumstance in which someone would not be in a position to have the relevant
knowledge would be where eye-witness testimony was crucial, and the person could not
have seen clearly what happened – perhaps because of poor eyesight, or perhaps because
he or she did not have a clear line of vision on the incident. In the case of a road accident,
for example, we would expect to get a more accurate account of what happened from
someone with good vision who was close to the accident and whose view was not obscured
in any way, than from someone with poor eyesight, or who was at some distance from the
accident, or who was viewing it from an angle, or through trees. Similar considerations
would apply in the case of information dependent upon hearing rather than vision.