Argumentation 25 (3):297-312 (2011)
AbstractThis 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
Similar books and articles
Why Arguments From Expert Opinion Are Weak Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise. [REVIEW]Harry Collins & Martin Weinel - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):401-413.
Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts.Jean Goodwin - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):285-296.
Experts in Dialogue: An Introduction. [REVIEW]Gábor Kutrovátz & Gábor Á Zemplén - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):275-283.
The Assessment of Argumentation From Expert Opinion.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
The Possibility of Ethical Expertise.Bruce D. Weinstein - 1994 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 15 (1):1-187.
Epistemological Expertise and the Problem of Epistemic Assessment.James Mcbain - 2007 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (1):125-133.
Evaluating Complex Collaborative Expertise: The Case of Climate Change. [REVIEW]William Rehg - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):385-400.
Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science.Roger M. Cooke (ed.) - 1991 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Xunzi on Moral Expertise.Justin Tiwald - 2012 - Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy 11 (3):275-293.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Arguments From Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias.Moti Mizrahi - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):175-195.
Scientific Consensus and Expert Testimony in Courts: Lessons From the Bendectin Litigation.Boaz Miller - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (1):15-33.
Epistemic Privilege and Expertise in the Context of Meta-Debate.Maureen Linker - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (1):67-84.
Coverage-Reliability, Epistemic Dependence, and the Problem of Rumor-Based Belief.Axel Gelfert - 2013 - Philosophia 41 (3):763-786.
References found in this work
Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment.Robert Brandom - 1994 - Harvard University Press.
Truth and Truthfulness: An Essay in Genealogy.Bernard Williams - 2002 - Princeton: Princeton University Press.