When to trust what others say: VCE Philosophy
“Viewpoints and arguments on when we should trust assertions made by others”
We cannot avoid trusting others, but trust should be responsive to evidence. Elizabeth Fricker argues that hearers should not be gullible: they should be sensitive to signs of a speaker's competence and sincerity, while recognising that we cannot check everything. Miranda Fricker adds that our judgements of credibility are often distorted by identity prejudice, so a good hearer must also correct for bias in how they assess speakers. Peirce warns that simply deferring to authority is one of the weaker methods of fixing belief. Good trust tracks competence, sincerity and the stakes involved.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
When is it reasonable to accept what someone tells you, and when should you hold back? You need a view about the grounds of trust, the risks of too much and too little, and how prejudice distorts our judgements of whom to trust.
Two conditions for trusting a speaker
Whether or not to believe someone asserting that P depends on at least two things:
- Competence: Is the speaker in a position to know P? Do they have the expertise, access or evidence?
- Sincerity: Are they telling me what they actually believe, with no motive to deceive?
Add a third: stakes. The more costly it is to be wrong, the more evidence you should want before relying on someone.
Elizabeth Fricker on testimony
In the extract, E. Fricker discusses the need for sharing information and the problem this poses for epistemic autonomy. Her approach, in outline, favours a hearer who is actively attentive: it is reasonable to accept testimony, but a normal hearer is continuously, often unconsciously, monitoring the speaker for signs of unreliability. She contrasts this with an approach under which we are entitled to believe whatever we are told, unless we have positive reason to doubt. Her concern is that such default credulity gives insufficient weight to our responsibility for our own beliefs. If you use her, say which of her claims you rely on and use the exact terms in your extract. This outline is drawn from the wider paper, so check it against your own extract: VCAA's sample exam question on this author centres on a thought experiment about a being who could check everything for itself, which humans cannot, so we must rely on the word of others, and the 2025 examiners' report refers to recognising when others are better placed to know.
Miranda Fricker on credibility
M. Fricker's account of epistemic injustice shows that trust is not a neutral calculation. When a hearer gives a speaker less credibility than the evidence warrants because of prejudice about their race, gender, class or accent, that is testimonial injustice. Her example from To Kill a Mockingbird is Tom Robinson's testimony being discounted by a jury because he is Black. The ideal hearer practises a virtue of testimonial justice: a reflexive awareness of the way prejudice may influence credibility judgements, and a correction for it. So the question 'whom should I trust?' includes 'am I distrusting someone for bad reasons?'
Peirce on authority
Peirce describes the method of authority as fixing belief by institutional power. He grants that it can be effective for the many, but it does not give us a way to tell when the authority is wrong. So trust in authority is not enough unless we have reason to think the authority is reliable. This links trust to the identification of genuine experts.
Practical tests of trust
- Is the person in a position to know?
- Is their record reliable in this area?
- Do others who are independent say the same?
- Do they have an interest in my believing this?
- What are the stakes if they are wrong?
- Am I applying a different standard because of who they are?
Objections and tensions
- Too much checking makes testimony pointless, since the benefit of testimony is saving effort.
- Too little checking exposes us to liars and charlatans.
- Bias works both ways: just as prejudice can lower credibility, flattery or status can inflate it, so credibility excess is also a problem.
- Unequal resources: some people have more ability than others to verify claims, so the burden of monitoring falls unevenly.
Question: A stranger on social media with a professional-looking profile claims a new supplement cures a disease. Should you trust them?
Competence: no verifiable qualifications, only appearance. Sincerity: they may sell the supplement, so they have a motive. Stakes: high, since health decisions are involved. Independent confirmation: none given.
Result: do not trust on this basis. The appropriate move is to look for independent sources such as peer-reviewed research or health authorities.
Reflection (Miranda Fricker): I should also check I am not distrusting sources simply because they come from unfamiliar or marginalised groups. The test is the evidence for competence and sincerity, not social status.
Practice questions
State two conditions that make it reasonable to trust a speaker.
Model answer: That they are competent, in a position to know about the matter, and that they are sincere, with no motive to deceive me. The stakes of being wrong also affect how strong the evidence must be.
How does Miranda Fricker's work complicate the question of when to trust?
Model answer: It shows judgements of credibility can be distorted by prejudice, so a hearer who thinks they are being cautious may actually be unjustly discounting a reliable speaker. Trust therefore requires correcting for bias as well as checking competence and sincerity.
Do not present trust as an all or nothing choice. The texts support degrees of trust that vary with evidence, topic and stakes.