It would probably be a mistake to consider any of the

Info iconThis preview shows pages 5–6. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
▲2. It would probably be a mistake to consider any of the individuals on this list more expert than the others, although different kinds and different levels of bias are fairly predictable on the parts of the victim’s father, the NRA representative, and possibly the police chief. The senator might be expected to have access to more data that are relevant to the issue, but that would not in itself make his or her credibility much greater than that of the others. The problem here is that we are dealing with a value judgment that depends very heavily upon an individual’s point of view rather than his or her expertise. What is important to this question is less the credibility of the person who gives us an answer than the strength of the supporting argument, if any, that he or she provides. ▲3. Although problem 2 hinges on a value judgment, this one calls for an interpretation of the original intent of a constitutional amendment. Here, our choices would be either the Supreme Court justice or the constitutional historian, with a slight preference for the latter because Supreme Court justices are concerned more with constitutional issues as they have been interpreted by other courts than with original intent. (And Supreme Court Justices are not the most reliable historians of the court.) The NRA representative is paid to speak for a certain point of view and would be the least credible, in our view. The senator and the U.S. president would fall somewhere in between: Both reasonably might be expected to be knowledgeable about constitutional issues but much less so than our first two choices. 4. We’d put the NIH and the New England Journal of Medicine at the top of our list. Time magazine, if it is reporting on a scientific study, is likely to be next most reliable. We’d expect Runner’s World to be less able to do fact-checking than Time , but we’d pay them some mind. Your physician could fit anywhere after the first two on the list depending on how much evidence we had that he or she kept up on the science on this subject. 5. Notice that this is not a biological question. If it were, a physician would be best at answering it. Similarly, if it were a legal question, we’d trust the lawyer. But this is a philosophical question, and we’d put the philosopher at the top of the list. The minister is very likely to have theological prejudice on the issue, so we’d count him as probably biased. You’ll have to decide where you fall on the list. (If you thought that you are the most credible source, then you probably assume that the question is purely subjective. This assumption is not warranted; it is one that bears some examination, and for guidance in that examination we’d find it reasonable to turn to a philosopher.) Exercise 4-13 ▲1. Professor St. Germaine would possess the greatest degree of credibility and authority on (d), (f), and(h), and, compared with someone who had not lived in both places, on (i).
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 6
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page5 / 8

It would probably be a mistake to consider any of the...

This preview shows document pages 5 - 6. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online