🧪 This platform is in early beta. Features may change and you might encounter bugs. We appreciate your patience!
argument_from_position_to_know
The argument from position to know asserts that a person's claim should be accepted because they are in a unique position to have direct knowledge of the relevant facts. Unlike general expert opinion, this scheme relies on situational access to information rather than formal credentials. A witness to an event, an insider within an organization, or someone with firsthand experience has epistemic privilege regarding the facts they observed.
The factory floor supervisor says the equipment failure was caused by a worn bearing, not operator error. She works with these machines daily and was present when the failure occurred, so her account should carry significant weight in the incident investigation.
A veteran nurse tells a hospital administrator that the new patient intake software is creating dangerous delays in emergency triage. 'I've been working this ER floor for 15 years and I'm the one watching patients wait,' she says. Her direct, daily experience gives her credible grounds to assess the software's real-world impact.
A longtime resident tells city planners that the proposed new bus route won't work because the road floods every winter and becomes impassable. 'I've lived on that street for 22 years — I know what happens every February.' Her firsthand, repeated experience gives her knowledge that the planners' maps and models may not capture.
Binary (yes/no) questions an LLM must answer to identify this aspect:
Does the arguer cite a source who claims to have direct access to relevant information?
Type: binaryIs the source's position to know (proximity, observation, access) actually established?
Type: binaryCould the source have reason to misrepresent what they know?
Type: binaryIs the claim within the scope of what the source's position actually grants them access to?
Type: binaryThe argument from position to know asserts that a person's claim should be accepted because they are in a unique position to have direct knowledge of the relevant facts. Unlike general expert opinion, this scheme relies on situational access to information rather than formal credentials. A witness to an event, an insider within an organization, or someone with firsthand experience has epistemic privilege regarding the facts they observed.
Firsthand observation and direct access to information provide an epistemic advantage that cannot be replicated through secondhand analysis. People recognize that 'being there' or 'being inside' gives knowledge that outsiders lack.
Ask whether the person's position truly gives them access to the relevant facts, whether they have reasons to misrepresent what they know, and whether their positional knowledge might be biased by their role or interests.
This scheme is central to whistleblower testimony, eyewitness accounts in court, insider reporting in journalism, and field reports in military and intelligence contexts.
Use these tools to detect, analyze, or train this aspect.