152 Unit 4 Applied critical thinking
credibility. A newspaper that has known
political affiliations – as have many if not most
newspapers – may report an event, or give an
account of something, in a way that another
publication, with different affiliations, flatly
contradicts. A third commentator may give yet
another version of events, different from
either of the others. Any one of the three may
be correct, but without any way of judging
which one it is, we tend naturally, and
justifiably, to place most trust in the one that
has no ‘axe to grind’ – as the saying goes.
Neutrality, therefore, is another criterion for
assessing credibility.Vested interest
One of the main reasons for doubting a
source’s neutrality is the discovery of a vested
interest. Vested interests may take many forms,
the most familiar being financial interest.
Take, for example, the following scenario: an
oil company wants to sink an exploratory well
in a region where there is some alleged risk of
environmental damage, and possible harm to
wildlife. Environmentalists have voiced strong
opposition; the oil company has hired a team
of ‘independent’ experts to assess the risks and
report on their findings. After some time the
team produce a statement that there is
practically no risk of contamination or other
damage, and the oil company gets the go-
ahead. Then just before the drilling is due to
start two of the experts on the team are found
to have substantial shares in the oil industry.
Had the report been negative, they would
have lost a lot of money; as it stands, they will
make a lot of money instead.
Obviously the report is discredited, not
because it is necessarily false, but because of
the vested interest of two of its authors. This
is an extreme example, and a stereotypical
one. But it is illustrative. The general question
that we have to ask is therefore this: Does the
author of the claim have any reason to make
the claim, other than believing it to be the
truth? If the answer is yes, truth may not be
the author’s highest priority.excitement, and bending down to pick
something up. What she picked up the witness
does not say, raising the question of how he
could be sure she picked anything up.
But there is another weakness in
Choudhury’s supposedly ‘eyewitness’
account. Whoever he saw in the crowd, it was
from behind; and he lost sight of her in the
crowd. He saw Amelia’s face close up only
when she was arrested. That was the face he
picked out of the line-up, but whether or not
the two women were the same we can’t be
sure. If Choudhury had not seen the arrest,
would he have identified Amelia in the
line-up? Again, we can’t be sure. The
credibility of Choudhury as a witness
ultimately comes down to his ability to see
what, and who, he claims to have seen.
A person’s ability to apprehend information
is thus another important factor in assessing
certain kinds of evidence. Imagine a witness
who claims to have overheard every detail of a
private conversation at another table in a busy
restaurant. The credibility of the claim could
be tested by asking her to sit at the same table
and repeat what she hears in similar, or more
favourable, circumstances. If she cannot hear
the words spoken in the test, she can hardly
claim to have heard every detail of the alleged
conversation. Her credibility as a witness
would come down to her ability to hear what
she says she heard, just as Rajinder
Choudhury’s comes down to his ability to see.Neutrality
As noted at the end of the last chapter, there is
a possibility that Choudhury may have
formed a dislike for Amelia. He seems quite
eager to point the finger at her, even though
he has little hard evidence; and there is
something in the tone of his testimony which
hints at disapproval. If this were the case, it
would further undermine confidence in the
evidence. As well as being able and informed, a
reliable source should, as far as possible, be
neutral. Even the possibility of bias or
prejudice is enough to lessen a source’s