Search shares the searchers' blind spots
The argument
Because defeater identification in assurance cases is itself prone to bias and incompleteness, the people running a defeater search may raise only the objections they can already imagine and dismiss them too readily, so the search can miss the most consequential weaknesses, including hazards no one has conceived.
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 →Defeater identification in assurance cases is itself prone to bias and incompleteness
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 27, 2026
Granting that defeater identification is itself prone to bias and incompleteness, the conclusion that the search can miss the most consequential weaknesses follows. As an objection to this claim, however, it lands only partially: it bounds what the search achieves rather than denying that the search surfaces overlooked weaknesses, which is all the claim asserts. It weighs decisively against reading the claim as a guarantee of completeness, and against any stronger claim that defeater search makes a safety case indefeasible.