Even if that's true -- and I think it's at best a rather reductionist reading -- haven't we recently agreed that the motives for holding a position are no guide to the truth of that position?
--CGE
^^^^^ CB: No , actually we didn't agree to that. As I mentioned to Miles, for example, in court, evidence of a witness' biases are admissable as evidence , because bias can be a motive to lie.
Philosophers have to share authority on rules of evidence with lawyers.