Mizrahi and Seidel: Experts in Confusion.

Authors

  • Martin David Hinton University of Łódź

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v35i4.4386

Keywords:

Argumentation, Experts, Ad verecundiam, Mizrahi, Seidel

Abstract

In this paper I describe the apparent differences between the views of Mizrahi (2013) and Seidel (2014) on the strength of arguments from expert opinion. I show that most of Seidel's objections rely on an understanding of the words 'expert' and 'opinion' different from those which Mizrahi employs. I also discuss certain inconsistencies found in both papers over the use of these key terms. The paper concludes by noting that Mizrahi is right to suggest that evidence shows expert predictions to be unreliable, but Seidel is correct to observe that this finding should not be used to claim that expert opinion in general is not to be trusted.

Author Biography

Martin David Hinton, University of Łódź

Assistant Professor in the Department of English and General Linguistics, Institute of English Studies, University of Łódź

Downloads

Published

2015-12-11

Issue

Vol. 35 No. 4 (2015)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .