Motivated authorship
The argument
Because safety cases are typically produced by the developer or operator of the system being assessed, their authors begin from an interest in demonstrating safety, and because people seeking evidence for a fixed conclusion tend to select confirming and overlook disconfirming evidence, the resulting arguments tend toward evidence that supports the desired conclusion.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Safety cases are typically produced by the developer or operator of the system being assessed
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →People seeking evidence for a fixed conclusion tend to select confirming and overlook disconfirming evidence
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.
Earlier ratings
- Jul 26, 2026
The inference is sound for a claim about tendency: if the authors of a document have a stake in its conclusion, and stake-holding reasoners select evidence toward their conclusion, a tendency in the resulting documents follows. Neither premise is seriously disputed; the general finding on confirmation bias is among the best-established results in cognitive psychology, and developer or operator authorship of safety cases is standard practice across regulated industries. The argument establishes proneness, not that any particular safety case is in fact biased, which is exactly the scope of the claim.
- Jul 26, 2026
The inference is sound for a claim about tendency: if the authors of a document have a stake in its conclusion, and stake-holding reasoners select evidence toward their conclusion, a tendency in the resulting documents follows. Neither premise is seriously disputed; the general finding on confirmation bias is among the best-established results in cognitive psychology, and developer or operator authorship of safety cases is standard practice across regulated industries. The argument establishes proneness, not that any particular safety case is in fact biased, which is exactly the scope of the claim.