This document discusses different methods of determining the credibility of claims: philosophically, scientifically, and historically. It outlines the key aspects of evaluating credibility scientifically and philosophically. For history, it identifies three epistemological aspects: historical events or facts, the use of narrative to connect facts and explain causation, and a commitment to naturalism in explanations. The document also addresses challenges in evaluating source credibility today and factors to consider like evidence, inaccuracies, and expert opinions. It notes expertise can be undermined by claims outside an area, factual errors, conflicts of interest, or opposing other experts.

1. Historical
Methodology/Credibility

3. Credibility
When you're thinking critically, you're evaluating every claim against
what you already know to see if it seems plausible or implausible.
-For the purposes of this class, there are three methods or systems by
which a claim is deemed creditable:
1. Philosophically
2. Scientifically
3. Historically

4. Scientific Credibility
• -Science deals almost exclusively with providing explications
concerning the physical world, that is, providing a systematic
empirical account of the way in which the universe operates.
Two philosophical commitments of science:
1. Empiricism- knowledge comes only or primarily from
sensory experience.
2. Naturalism- idea or belief that only natural laws and
forces operate in the world.

5. Philosophy:
• -Remember that Philosophy is a search
for a fundamental understanding of the
world through the process of critical
thinking and critical discussion.
• -Subsequently, the primary method by
which philosophical claims are deemed
“reasonable” or “justifiable” is heavily
reliant upon logic and how well those
claims undergo logical scrutiny.
• -Since philosophy is not limited to a
strict empiricism, the scope of
philosophy is much larger than that of
science.

6. History
• History is a combination of three epistemological aspects:
1. The occurrence of historical events (or historical facts)- these are
events which are verifiable or documented and are
commonly accepted by professional historians.
2. The use of narrative (Theory)- narrative in history function the
same way that theory does in science, that is, narrative is what
connects historical facts and explains historical causation.
3. Naturalism- history is also committed to a form of naturalism in
that historical explanation must fall within the realm of known
possibility. Historical ideas must, in some sense, be testable.

7. Problem of sources/credibility
• The problem nowadays with
sources/credibility is the fact that it has
become increasingly difficult to make
the distinction between a creditable
source and a non-creditable one.
• Since information is so readily available,
and since dissenting (or opposing)
views are abundant, it is often times
difficult or impossible to tell which
view-point is backed by credible
evidence or authorities.

8. Evaluating a claims credibility
• Whether evidence is offered to
support the claim
• Whether there are any obvious
inaccuracies
• Whether the claim is an
observation or an inferred
conclusion

9. Expert Opinion
• Typically, when we are unsure about the
validity of a particular claim, our want
to legitimate our own view of a
particular claim, it is necessary to
appeal to experts.
• An expert is someone who knows more
than most people about a specific
subject. Remember that Expert opinion
doesn't guarantee truth, but it is usually
a reliable guide to it.

10. Expert Opinion
• If you're having trouble deciding if someone
is truly an expert, here are some things to
look for:
• Education from reputable institutions or in
relevant programs
• Experience—the more in the field, the better
• Professional accomplishments that are
directly relevant
• Reputation among peers

11. -Expertise loses credibility when the expert
• Makes a claim outside their area of expertise (remember the fallacy
of unqualified authority)
• Makes simple factual errors or mistakes in logic or reasoning
• Seems to be speaking from an emotional orientation
• Has a clear conflict of interests (e.g., being paid to present a specific
view)
• Doesn't provide sufficient support for tenuous claims
• Holds a view in direct opposition to most other experts in the same
subject area

12. What is the purpose of History?
• 1. First, historians are interested in providing conceptualizations
and factual descriptions of events and circumstances in the past.
• 2. Second, historians often want to answer “why” questions: “Why
did this event occur? What were the conditions and forces that
brought it about?”
• 3. Third, and related to the previous point, historians are sometimes
interested in answering a “how” question.
• 4. Fourth, often historians are interested in piecing together the
human meanings and intentions that underlie a given complex
series of historical actions.