Starkly opposed claims and positions regarding the TPP (or anything else) raise an important question: When something seems or is agreed by all to be both good and bad in some respects, how are we to decide whether to accept it or not?
In reviewing and assessing the [Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement] and associated claims for or against it, it is critical to be alert to whether the debate is about whom and what to believe and what evidence to accept or whether the task is to decide what absolute and relative weight (in the sense of importance or value, rather than evidential support) to give the cited "good" and "bad" outcomes.
Put more succinctly, any specific TPP debate issue can be about either "weight of evidence" or "evidence of weight(ing)", or both, where "evidence of weighting" means perceived differences in the assigned values-determined importance, anticipated stakes or other forms of "weight" attached to the issue and the anticipated consequences of the TPP. Often, this weighting of evidence is a reflection of moral principles and other values, which are never "verified" the way facts and evidence for them can be.
