Dreyfus on expertise: The limits of phenomenological analysis
Continental Philosophy Review 35 (3):245-279 (2002)
| Abstract | Dreyfus's model of expert skill acquisition is philosophically important because it shifts the focus on expertise away from its social and technical externalization in STS, and its relegation to the historical and psychological context of discovery in the classical philosophy of science, to universal structures of embodied cognition and affect. In doing so he explains why experts are not best described as ideologues and why their authority is not exclusively based on social networking. Moreover, by phenomenologically analyzing expertise from a first person perspective, he reveals the limitations of, and sometimes superficial treatment that comes from, investigating expertise from a third person perspective. Thus, he shows that expertise is a prime example of a subject that is essential to science but can only be fully elaborated with the aid of phenomenological tools. However, both Dreyfus's descriptive model and his normative claims are flawed due to the lack of hermeneutical sensitivity. He assumes an expert's knowledge has crystallized out of contextual sensitivity plus experience, and that an expert has shed, during the training process, whatever prejudices, ideologies, hidden agendas, or other forms of cultural embeddedness, that person might have begun with. One would never imagine, from Dreyfus's account, that society could possibly be endangered by experts, only how society's expectations and actions could endanger experts. The stories of actual controversies not only shows things do not work the way Dreyfus claims, but also that it would be less salutary if they did. Such stories amount to counterexamples to Dreyfus's normative claims, and point to serious shortcomings in his arguments. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesGabriel Gottlieb (2011). Unreflective Action and the Argument From Speed. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (3):338-362.
Fernand Gobet & Philippe Chassy (2009). Expertise and Intuition: A Tale of Three Theories. Minds and Machines 19 (2):151-180.
Michael Cholbi (2007). Moral Expertise and the Credentials Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):323-334.
Bruce D. Weinstein (1994). The Possibility of Ethical Expertise. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1).
Hubert L. Dreyfus & Stuart E. Dreyfus (1991). Towards a Phenomenology of Ethical Expertise. Human Studies 14 (4):229 - 250.
Bruce D. Weinstein (1993). What is an Expert? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (1).
Jason Borenstein (2002). Authenticating Expertise. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):85-102.
Harry Collins & Martin Weinel (2011). Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise. Argumentation 25 (3):401-413.
Barbara Montero & C. Evans (2011). Intuitions Without Concepts Lose the Game: Mindedness in the Art of Chess. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (2):175-194.
Jørgen W. Eriksen (2010). Mindless Coping in Competitive Sport: Some Implications and Consequences. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 4 (1):66 – 86.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads28 ( #44,013 of 548,999 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,320 of 548,999 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
