Library

Reid on the principles of veracity and credulity

Thomas Reid, An Inquiry into the Human Mind, on the Principles of Common Sense (1764)

Why it is here

Reid’s reply to Hume: we are made both to speak the truth and to believe what we are told, two principles that tally with each other.

Why it matters

Thomas Reid answers Hume by describing two original principles of human nature that tally with each other. The principle of veracity is a propensity to speak truth and to use the signs of language so as to convey our real sentiments. The principle of credulity is a disposition to confide in the veracity of others and to believe what they tell us. Children trust before they can reason about whom to trust, and reason later learns to qualify the trust.

Reid is the ancestor of the anti-reductionist views I draw on, which hold that we are entitled to accept what we are told, absent reasons for doubt, without first checking the teller’s record. What stands out, reading him now, is that the entitlement he describes is paired with a disposition on the speaker’s side. Credulity is reasonable because veracity is real: the two principles tally.

A language model’s answers engage our credulity, since they come in the grammar of telling. What they lack, on the best current evidence, is the partner principle: production that is answerable to the truth of what is conveyed. Reid’s tally is broken at one end. That is why I think the default entitlement to believe what we are told does not carry over to these systems, and why relying on them is a different kind of act.

Two principles that tally: the principle of veracity

Inquiry, Chapter VI ("Of Seeing"), Section XXIV, pp. 351–353 of the 1818 printing

The wise and beneficent Author of nature, who intended that we should be social creatures, and that we should receive the greatest and most important part of our knowledge by the information of others, hath, for these purposes, implanted in our natures, two principles that tally with each other.

The first of these principles is, a propensity to speak truth, and to use the signs of language, so as to convey our real sentiments. This principle has a powerful operation, even in the greatest liars; for, where they lie once, they speak truth a hundred times. Truth is always uppermost, and is the natural issue of the mind. It requires no art or training, no inducement or temptation, but only that we yield to a natural impulse. Lying, on the contrary, is doing violence to our nature; and is never practised, even by the worst men, without some temptation. Speaking truth is like using our natural food, which we would do from appetite, although it answered no end; but lying is like taking physic, which is nauseous to the taste, and which no man takes but for some end which he cannot otherwise attain.

If it should be objected, That men may be influenced by moral or political considerations to speak truth, and therefore, that their doing so, is no proof of such an original principle as we have mentioned: I answer, first, That moral or political considerations can have no influence, until we arrive at years of understanding and reflection: and it is certain from experience that children keep to truth invariably, before they are capable of being influenced by such considerations. Secondly, When we are influenced by moral or political considerations, we must be conscious of that influence, and capable of perceiving it upon reflection. Now, when I reflect upon my actions most attentively, I am not conscious, that, in speaking truth, I am influenced on ordinary occasions by any motive moral or political. I find, that truth is always at the door of my lips, and goes forth spontaneously, if not held back. It requires neither good nor bad intention to bring it forth, but only that I be artless and undesigning. There may, indeed, be temptations to falsehood, which would be too strong for the natural principle of veracity, unaided by principles of honour or virtue; but where there is no such temptation, we speak truth by instinct; and this instinct is the principle I have been explaining.

By this instinct, a real connection is formed between our words and our thoughts, and thereby the former become fit to be signs of the latter, which they could not otherwise be. And although this connection is broken in every instance of lying and equivocation, yet these instances being comparatively few, the authority of human testimony is only weakened by them, but not destroyed.

The principle of credulity

Inquiry, Chapter VI, Section XXIV, pp. 353–355

Another original principle implanted in us by the Supreme Being, is a disposition to confide in the veracity of others, and to believe what they tell us. This is the counter-part to the former; and as that may be called the principle of veracity, we shall, for want of a more proper name, call this the principle of credulity. It is unlimited in children, until they meet with instances of deceit and falsehood: and it retains a very considerable degree of strength through life.

If nature had left the mind of the speaker in equilibrio, without any inclination to the side of truth more than to that of falsehood; children would lie as often as they speak truth, until reason was so far ripened, as to suggest the imprudence of lying, or conscience, as to suggest its immorality. And, if nature had left the mind of the hearer in equilibrio, without any inclination to the side of belief more than to that of disbelief, we should take no man's word until we had positive evidence that he spoke truth. His testimony would, in this case, have no more authority than his dreams; which may be true or false, but no man is disposed to believe them, on this account, that they were dreamed. It is evident, that, in the matter of testimony, the balance of human judgment is by nature inclined to the side of belief; and turns to that side of itself, when there is nothing put into the opposite scale. If it was not so, no proposition that is uttered in discourse would be believed, until it was examined and tried by reason; and most men would be unable to find reasons for believing the thousandth part of what is told them. Such distrust and incredulity would deprive us of the greatest benefits of society, and place us in a worse condition than that of savages.

Children, on this supposition, would be absolutely incredulous; and therefore absolutely incapable of instruction: those who had little knowledge of human life, and of the manners and characters of men, would be in the next degree incredulous; and the most credulous men would be those of greatest experience, and of the greatest penetration; because, in many cases, they would be able to find good reasons for believing testimony, which the weak and the ignorant could not discover.

In a word, if credulity were the effect of reasoning and experience, it must grow up and gather strength, in the same proportion as reason and experience do. But, if it is the gift of nature, it will be strongest in childhood, and limited and restrained by experience; and the most superficial view of human life shews, that the last is really the case, and not the first.

Reason's infancy: leaning upon authority, and testimony strengthened by reason

Inquiry, Chapter VI, Section XXIV, pp. 355–356

It is the intention of nature, that we should be carried in arms before we are able to walk upon our legs; and it is likewise the intention of nature, that our belief should be guided by the authority and reason of others, before it can be guided by our own reason. The weakness of the infant, and the natural affection of the mother, plainly indicate the former; and the natural credulity of youth, and authority of age, as plainly indicate the latter. The infant, by proper nurssing and care, acquires strength to walk without support. Reason hath likewise her infancy, when she must be carried in arms: when she leans entirely upon authority, by natural instinct, as if she was conscious of her own weakness; and without this support, she becomes vertiginous. When brought to maturity by proper culture, she begins to feel her own strength, and leans less upon the reason of others; she learns to suspect testimony in some cases, and to disbelieve it in others; and sets bounds to that authority to which she was at first entirely subject. But still, to the end of life, she finds a necessity of borrowing light from testimony, where she has none within herself, and of leaning in some degree upon the reason of others, where she is conscious of her own imbecility.

And as in many instances, Reason, even in her maturity, borrows aid from testimony; so in others, she mutually gives aid to it, and strengthens its authority. For as we find good reason to reject testimony in some cases, so in others we find good reason to rely upon it with perfect security, in our most important concerns. The character, the number, and the disinterestedness of witnesses, the impossibility of collusion, and the incredibility of their concurring in their testimony without collusion, may give an irresistible strength to testimony, compared to which its native and intrinsic authority is very inconsiderable.

Questions for discussion

  1. Reid says we are made both to speak the truth and to believe what we are told. Is trust in testimony a natural endowment, as Reid holds, or a habit learned from experience, as Hume holds?
  2. Reid describes the child's credulity as belonging to reason's infancy. When, on his view, should reason begin to check what testimony teaches?
  3. If Reid is right, are you justified in following a stranger's directions in a city you do not know? Would Hume say the same?

The text and its source

Edition
An Inquiry into the Human Mind, on the Principles of Common Sense, by Thomas Reid, D.D. (Edinburgh: printed for Anderson and Macdowall, and James Robertson, 1818), Chapter VI, Section XXIV "Of the Analogy between Perception, and the Credit we give to Human Testimony", pp. 351–356 (University of Toronto copy, digitised by the Internet Archive). A posthumous reprint; first edition Edinburgh 1764.
Status
Public domain: first published 1764; this printing 1818; Reid died 1796.
Notes on the text
NOT on Project Gutenberg or Wikisource. No clean transcription exists among the sources consulted, so the text was taken from the archive.org OCR of the 1818 printing and checked line by line against the page images (pp. 351–356, saved in raw/reid_pages/). Every OCR error found was corrected to the printed reading, and only those (11 corrections): p. 351: last line reads "social creatures," (OCR truncated); p. 352: "speak truth"; p. 353: "explain-/ing." (OCR read the full stop as a hyphen); p. 353: no paragraph break between "formed" and "between" (OCR inserted one); p. 354: no quotation mark before "without"; p. 354: "falsehood ;" (semicolon); p. 354: "in equilibrio" (italic); p. 355: "it will be strongest"; p. 355: "guided by our own reason"; p. 356: the print itself reads "nurs-/sing" (a compositor's error for "nursing"); kept as printed, giving "nurssing"; p. 356: "to it,and" is set without a space in a tightly justified line; space supplied. Every word was also cross-checked against an independent OCR of E. H. Sneath's 1892 text (The Philosophy of Reid, archive.org philosophyofreid00reiduoft); the remaining word differences are genuine edition variants. Normalisation (applied identically for verification): running heads, page numbers and signature marks removed, line-end hyphenation joined, typographic spaces before ; : ? removed. "verified" here means: the passage equals the 1818 OCR after that normalisation and the listed, image-checked corrections; the character-level diff against the uncorrected OCR contains nothing else. Italics in print ("the principle of veracity", "the principle of credulity", "in equilibrio") are not marked. Spelling as printed ("shews", "counter-part", "honour"). Variant: the 1764 first edition (and Sneath 1892) read "of the deepest penetration" where this 1818 printing reads "of the greatest penetration"; the 1764 text also has "supreme being" in lower case. Kept as printed: "nurssing" (the 1818 compositor's error for "nursing"). If a first-edition (1764) text is preferred, these passages would need re-keying from the 1764 scan (archive.org bim_eighteenth-century_an-inquiry-into-the-huma_reid-thomas_1764), whose OCR is too corrupt to use directly.

Questions it bears on

My essays and papers on it

Terms

Cite this page

Thomas Reid. An Inquiry into the Human Mind, on the Principles of Common Sense. In: Reid on the principles of veracity and credulity, abhinavsaxena.in library. https://abhinavsaxena.in/library/reid-credulity/

Read next