David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Argumentation 25 (3):285-296 (2011)
Work in Argumentation Studies (AS) and Studies in Expertise and Experience (SEE) has been proceeding on converging trajectories, moving from resistance to expert authority to a cautious acceptance of its legitimacy. The two projects are therefore also converging on the need to account for how, in the course of complex and confused civic deliberations, nonexpert citizens can figure out which statements from purported experts deserve their trust. Both projects recognize that nonexperts cannot assess expertise directly; instead, the nonexpert must judge whether to trust the expert. But how is this social judgment accomplished? A normative pragmatic approach from AS can complement and extend the work from SEE on this question, showing that the expert’s putting forward of his view and “bonding” it with his reputation for expertise works to force or “blackmail” his audience of citizens into heeding what he says. Appeals to authority thus produce the visibility and accountability we want for expert views in civic deliberations
|Keywords||Argumentation Expertise Authority Appeal to authority Deliberation Normative pragmatics|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
H. M. Collins & Robert Evans (2007). Rethinking Expertise. University of Chicago Press.
Alvin I. Goldman (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1):85-110.
Jean Goodwin (2007). Argument Has No Function. Informal Logic 27 (1):69-90.
Jean Goodwin (2001). Cicero's Authority. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34 (1):38-60.
Jean Goodwin (2000). Comments on `Rhetoric and Dialectic From the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics'. Argumentation 14 (3):287-292.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stephen Turner (2001). What is the Problem with Experts? Social Studies of Science 31 (1):123-149.
Geert Munnichs (2004). Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):113-130.
Harry Collins & Martin Weinel (2011). Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):401-413.
Justin Tiwald (2012). Xunzi on Moral Expertise. Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 11 (3):275-293.
Axel Gelfert (2011). Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry. Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
Jason Borenstein (2002). Authenticating Expertise. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):85-102.
Massimo Pigliucci (2008). Are You an Expert? [REVIEW] Quarterly Review of Biology 83 (1):87-90.
Rosemarie Tong (1991). The Epistemology and Ethics of Consensus: Uses and Misuses of 'Ethical' Expertise. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):409-426.
Michael Cholbi (2007). Moral Expertise and the Credentials Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):323-334.
Evan M. Selinger & Robert P. Crease (2002). Dreyfus on Expertise: The Limits of Phenomenological Analysis. [REVIEW] Continental Philosophy Review 35 (3):245-279.
Robert Pierson (1994). The Epistemic Authority of Expertise. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:398 - 405.
Moti Mizrahi (2013). Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Weak Arguments. Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
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.
Added to index2011-07-25
Total downloads18 ( #94,527 of 1,102,989 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #62,029 of 1,102,989 )
How can I increase my downloads?