Submitted by Samuel Jefferson Kennard
March 17, 2016 7:22 a.m.
Cred . i . bil . I . ty: The quality of being believed or accepted as true, real or honest. Credibility is an exacting and consistent standard that can be lost or damaged through careless or deliberate behavior.
I believe that those of us engaged in advocacy of solutions for the priority issues affecting the general public welfare of our community have a responsibility, a moral and legal obligation, to be credible. Where possible, we must endeavor to clearly delineate facts from opinions. We must narrow credibility gaps, public skepticism of the disparity between what is said or written and the actual fact. Advocacy should be fact-based, grounded in credible behavior and underscored by the highest level of integrity.
In the public discourse of local matters that are important and urgent, sometimes the heat of emotion exceeds the light of reason. Sometimes knowledge is pursued through pseudo science instead of the scientific method. Some people begin with a desired conclusion and use Google research to collect information that supports their pre-conceived position.
Sometimes conclusions presented as facts are based on incorrect assumptions. You get the picture.
Recently, I have noticed a disturbing reaction to some public advocacy, a leap in logic from healthy skepticism to paranoid distrust. Those expressing disagreement with opinions and facts being advocated by others, and unable to challenge the professional and credible opinions, assessments and facts, turn their animus toward attacking the advocate’s motives and impugning their integrity. Resorting to character assassination is truly a sad and contemptuous turn of events.
I urge those of us representing advocacy organizations or otherwise inclined to write opinion letters to newspaper editors, post them on web sites or plead causes before local governmental officials to pledge to be more professional and credible. Take the credibility pledge. This will raise the level of civil public discourse and provide for more informed decision-making.
Editor’s Note: Samuel Jefferson Kennard’s Florida roots go back to the early nineteenth century. His pioneer ancestor signed the Territory of Florida’s First Constitution in 1838 and others have lived continuously on Amelia Island for 150 years. The great grandson of a Cumberland Sound pilot family, Kennard continues a proud tradition of advocacy for a viable Port of Fernandina. Kennard stated, “Nassau County, and Fernandina Beach need a working port. It’s part of our rich heritage and who we are.”
Kennard is founding chairman of Stand for Amelia Island, Inc., a not for profit State of Florida Corporation dedicated to advocating solutions for important issues affecting the general public welfare of Fernandina Beach, Amelia Island and Nassau County.
Kennard was graduated from the University of Georgia and attended Harvard Business School executive development programs. Kennard is married and he and his wife, Karin live on Amelia Island.
Not sure if this is a well thought out policy statement, that somehow disputing someone’s information is character assassination. I certainly agree that factual material needs to be unearthed. I also agree that if an individual’s facts are disputed, they need to be checked. Advocating one side or the other requires verification from credible sources such as the Phds of the National Institute of Health, actual data from the Florida Department of the Environment, the data collected from the United States Geological Services water resource reports, consent orders entered into by companies who agree with consent orders on violations, current Yale University Phd studies among many other credible sources of information. Taking ALL information from credible sources is important in evaluating statements made by others. Just to say something is wrong, needs to be backed up by researched studies and data. I also was a founding member of Stand for Amelia who thoughtfully worked hard to collect credible data and educate the public. I suggest that if organizations adopt positions, they really do need to conduct research and ask questions that receive credible answers. In the real world of science this is not considered an attempt to assassinate anyone’s character, it is called research. The above thought process seems to advocate the loss of democracy and research because we all may “assassinate” someone’s character. “Opinions” are just “opinions”, not research.
Incredibly, the commenter and I seem to be in agreement on everything except attacking an advocate’s motive and endeavoring to impugn their credibility. There are those amongst us that when they disagree with opinions and facts presented by other advocates, when they do not want to accept the message and can not disprove the inconvenient facts, resort to attacking the credibility of the messenger. If someone intentionally impugns another’s character, without a basis in fact and this causes injury, they should be held liable.
Jeff, excellent opinion paper.
I have found another barrier to credibility and it is people’s inability or unwillingness to understand (or accept) their own limitations of knowledge and experience. In many fields, particularly highly technical ones (e.g. gas diffusion), knowledge can only be gained through painstaking cumulative learning in that field (e.g. mathematics) and the intricate relationship with other equally complex field (e.g. thermodynamics).
People who lack subject matter expertise often fail to recognize their own ability to analyze complex problems and reach fact-based logical conclusions They fail to understand all the variables that impact a problem and its full context. These people mistakingly believe that by reading a short article on the internet and quoting expert commentary, they become credible sources of information. This lack of self-awareness, combined with a lack of humility, produces disastrous results that often times translates in deep stubbornness and failure to admit their own mistakes.
I agree credibility is important, especially when we question the motives of representatives. True Americans question the motives of our representatives by requiring the source of political contributions. Advocates of democracy question the motives of Kinder Morgan, but not anyone else? Advocates of democracy question the motives of the Port Commissioners, but no one else? Selective questioning is generally considered to be anti-democratic behavior. By the way, have you found any new board members to replace the ones who resigned from Stand for Amelia? I noticed my name is still on the State of Florida business entity search as a board member of SAM. If I am still on the board, I would appreciate having my name removed from the state filings from the organization. Thank you for your kind consideration of the opinions of others.
By the way, the commenter should know better. Abusing public postings for personal communications is inappropriate.
Accordingly, I will not engage in a public discussion of plans for replacing any malcontent.
Mrs Ross, true Americans don’t engage in pseudo-science and slanderous comments about other members of the community….
Following your train of thought then: what are the real motives of your advocacy? Because claiming that air quality will not improve as the result of the LignoTech project is false. Is your real motive to shut down the mills who employee about 1,000 people?