Graduate studies at Western
Argumentation 25 (3):297-312 (2011)
|Abstract||This paper argues that the problem of expertise calls for a rapprochement between social epistemology and argumentation theory. Social epistemology has tended to emphasise the role of expert testimony, neglecting the argumentative function of appeals to expert opinion by non-experts. The first half of the paper discusses parallels and contrasts between the two cases of direct expert testimony and appeals to expert opinion by our epistemic peers, respectively. Importantly, appeals to expert opinion need to be advertised as such, if they are to sway an epistemic peer. The second half of the paper sketches a theoretical framework for thinking about assessments of expertise in a unified way, via a ‘default and challenge’ model that emphasises the need for a version of conversational scorekeeping. It is through such scorekeeping that interlocutors can track and coordinate their differences in epistemic outlook. The paper concludes with a genealogical perspective on the function of (attributions of) expertise: acceptance of another’s appeal to expert opinion may be construed as tacit agreement that inquiry, for now, has been taken far enough|
|Keywords||Expertise Testimony Expert opinion Social epistemology Default-and-challenge model|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Moti Mizrahi (2013). Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Weak Arguments. Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
Harry Collins & Martin Weinel (2011). Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):401-413.
Jason Borenstein (2002). Authenticating Expertise. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):85-102.
Jean Goodwin (2011). Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts. Argumentation 25 (3):285-296.
Bruce D. Weinstein (1993). What is an Expert? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (1).
Gábor Kutrovátz & Gábor Á Zemplén (2011). Experts in Dialogue: An Introduction. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):275-283.
Jean H. M. Wagemans (2011). The Assessment of Argumentation From Expert Opinion. Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
Bruce D. Weinstein (1994). The Possibility of Ethical Expertise. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1).
Michael Cholbi (2007). Moral Expertise and the Credentials Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):323-334.
James McBain (2007). Epistemological Expertise and the Problem of Epistemic Assessment. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (1):125-133.
William Rehg (2011). Evaluating Complex Collaborative Expertise: The Case of Climate Change. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):385-400.
Nicolas Bommarito (2010). Rationally Self-Ascribed Anti-Expertise. Philosophical Studies 151 (3):413-19.
Roger M. Cooke (1991). Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science. Oxford University Press.
Justin Tiwald (2012). Xunzi on Moral Expertise. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 11 (3):275-293.
Evan M. Selinger (2003). Expertise and Public Ignorance. Critical Review 15 (3-4):375-386.
Added to index2011-07-22
Total downloads21 ( #65,392 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,030 of 739,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?