Graduate studies at Western
Argumentation 25 (3):355-370 (2011)
|Abstract||I discuss under what conditions the objection that an expert’s argument is biased by her self-interest can be a meaningful and sound argumentative move. I suggest replacing the idea of bias qua self-interest by that of a conflict of interests, exploit the distinction between an expert context and a public context, and hold that the objection can be meaningful. Yet, the evaluation is overall negative, because the motivational role of self-interest for human behavior remains unclear. Moreover, if recent social-psychological results from the “heuristics and biases” program are accepted, it is plausible to assume that humans also satisfice (rather than optimize/maximize) when identifying and then acting in their self-interest. My thesis is: insofar as the objection is sound with a particular audience, it is not needed; and insofar as the objection is needed, it is unsound|
|Keywords||Circumstantial ad hominem Ad verecundiam Personal attack Argument from expert opinion Expertise Context Bias Heuristics Conflict of interest|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Hugo Mercier (2011). When Experts Argue: Explaining the Best and the Worst of Reasoning. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):313-327.
Robert H. Frank (2005). Conflict of Interest as an Objection to Consequentialist Moral Reasoning. In Don A. Moore (ed.), Conflicts of Interest: Challenges and Solutions in Business, Law, Medicine, and Public Policy. Cambridge University Press.
Gábor Kutrovátz & Gábor Á Zemplén (2011). Experts in Dialogue: An Introduction. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):275-283.
Paul J. Friedman (1992). The Troublesome Semantics of Conflict of Interest. Ethics and Behavior 2 (4):245 – 251.
Jonas Åkerman & Patrick Greenough (2010). Hold the Context Fixed, Vagueness Still Remains. In Sebastiano Moruzzi & Richard Dietz (eds.), Cuts and Clouds. Oxford University Press.
Stephen John (2011). Expert Testimony and Epistemological Free-Riding: The Mmr Controversy. Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):496-517.
Axel Gelfert (2011). Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry. Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
Michael C. Munger (2011). Self-Interest and Public Interest: The Motivations of Political Actors. Critical Review 23 (3):339-357.
Jeryl L. Mumpower & Thomas R. Stewart (1996). Expert Judgement and Expert Disagreement. Thinking and Reasoning 2 (2 & 3):191 – 212.
Jean Goodwin (2011). Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts. Argumentation 25 (3):285-296.
Daylian M. Cain, George Loewenstein & Don A. Moore (unknown). The Dirt on Coming Clean: Perverse Effects of Disclosing Conflicts of Interest. :81-99.
Yujin Nagasawa (2010). The Knowledge Argument and Epiphenomenalism. Erkenntnis 72 (1):37 - 56.
Geert Munnichs (2004). Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):113-130.
Jean H. M. Wagemans (2011). The Assessment of Argumentation From Expert Opinion. Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
J. Sonderholm (2013). World Poverty, Positive Duties, and the Overdemandingness Objection. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (3):308-327.
Added to index2011-07-25
Total downloads4 ( #189,165 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?