John Goss 1

John Goss

Professor Peter Fields

UWRT 1102

5 May 2017

However, naturally those who have received their credibility, or

authority, on a subject will reject the proposed solution. Skeptics who lack

scholarly authority themselves will also reject the solution as they dont want

potential hacks adding their input to a subject. These groups will choose to

focus on the idea that making credibility easily accessible simply cant

happen.

By briefly joining the opposing view there is an immediate blockade

present when it comes to providing credibility. This blockade would be the

already established societal construct that any authority on a subject matter

comes with age and many years of study towards said subject. With this

problem facing the potential solution it becomes clear what easily

accessible credibility is missing; a means of execution.

The solution is sound and seems as though it would be effective, but

getting society to go against their indoctrinated ideas about authority and

adopting the solution would be incredibly difficult. The solution would be

difficult to execute simply because most people who are in high enough

power to allow the solution had to wait for their own credibility. Because of
 John Goss 2

this, they would be hesitant at the least to jump on board to the idea of

making credibility easier to access. An article posted to Skeptical Science by

Graham Wayne, written by John Cook, speaks about establishing authority on

a subject. John Cook states There are rules, and you cannot break them

except at your cost (and the cost of your audience). These standards must

be met, else you are doomed to be second-rate (Cook, 2010). Cook himself

is part of the Older generation, while it is unclear his stance toward offense,

he goes against the proposition of making credibility easier to obtain.

Previously the solution was discussed under more general or societal

terms. However, when considering a more scholarly focus, which was also

the focus when creating the proposed solution, there are doubters of its

effectiveness as well. In an article written by Regina Jucks and Franziska M.

Thon on the topic of social validation they mention social validation of the

masses. The two state that social validation by the masses affects the

perception of information and the reasons for reading a news article seem

to be related to social validation (Jucks and Thon, 2016). Knowing these two

statements we can apply them to the opposing stance towards the solution.

Credibility and authority could also be considered validation, and if it is true

that social validation affects the masses perception then the solution would

theoretically fail. If an individuals validation in the eyes of the masses is lack

luster then making credibility easily accessible would be effectively useless

sense credibility is perceived instead of given.

 John Goss 3

Opposition to the solution aside, the solution itself seems to be free of

major problems if it was brought into effect. While there are no immediately

apparent major problems to easily accessible credibility, there would be

more work put into filtering desired information. With the inflow of more

individuals viewpoints, trains of thought, and studies there would be

substantially more informative articles for the public to use. This in turn

becomes the most apparent problem to the solution, albeit the problem of

increased filtering of information essentially stems from positive roots.

The value to be presented by the implementation of easily obtainable

credibility outweighs the price that must be paid in the form of filtering.

Reviewing more work and the act of determining someones trustworthiness

would increase undoubtedly, but the increase in studies and viewpoints and

conclusions would offer a great deal to the study of offense, and other

scientific studies in general. Through this solution, younger researchers gain

the opportunity to have their voices heard in a scholarly sense and eliminate

this seemingly one track mindset on the topic of offense presented by the

older generation.

Now, supposing that the gap is filled because of the proposed solution,

the two major generations and their theories on offense can find common

ground and potentially find a way to limit or possibly prevent offense.

The research and study of offense would subsequently evolve to be

void of most bias and slanderous conclusions about those of separate

 John Goss 4

generations. With both younger, and older, generations able to have their

thought and ideas about their personal offense heard in a professional

manner there would be a decrease in hostility within the field. Equal

opportunity to be considered credible would present the chance for cross

generational collaboration. The lack of peer reviewed and credible sources by

those of younger generations would be solved with feasibly attainable

credibility. With that gap filled, the next obstacle would be to tackle taking

offense altogether.

Why is it that individuals in society take offense and is it truly

important, or necessary, to make our offense known to others? Between

younger and older generations, as well as those who are apathetic to

offense, there is a significant divide on how to handle their offense.

Individual view offense and relays it differently; the older generation also has

an advantage when it comes to studying offense. With their age, they have

the privilege of credibility, authority, and general trustworthiness that can

only be developed over many years. Because of this credibility bias, the

widely-accepted thoughts toward offense generally come from the older

generation and overpower those of the younger generation. Eliminating this

bias by making authority and credibility easier to obtain in a shorter time

frame would even the playing field. With both generations thoughts, studies,

and research respected equally, finding the reason for taking offense and

potentially eliminating it would be within reach.