Mizrahi and Seidel: Experts in Confusion

Informal Logic 35 (4):539-554 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In this paper I describe the apparent differences between the views of Mizrahi and Seidel 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.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,386

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How the epistemic relativist may use the sceptic’s strategy: A reply to Markus Seidel.Howard Sankey - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (1):140-144.
Multicultural Education in the Zionist State – The Mizrahi Challenge.Yossi Dahan & Gal Levy - 2000 - Studies in Philosophy and Education 19 (5/6):423-444.
The trouble with experts.Paul J. Quirk - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (4):449-465.


Added to PP

49 (#318,154)

6 months
17 (#142,329)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Experts: Which ones should you trust?Alvin I. Goldman - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1):85-110.
The Place of Emotion in Argument.Douglas N. Walton - 1992 - Pennsylvania State University Press.
The Place of Emotion in Argument.Douglas WALTON - 1992 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 29 (1):84-86.

View all 11 references / Add more references