Social Epistemology 33 (2):160-171 (2019)

Authors
Abstract
ABSTRACTIn order to properly understand how expert disagreement should be dealt with, it is essential to grasp how expert opinion is used in the reasoning process by which humans reach conclusions and make decisions. This paper utilises the tools of argumentation theory, specifically Douglas Walton’s argument schemes, and variations upon them, in order to examine how patterns of reasoning are affected by the presence of conflicting testimony. This study suggests that although it may be supplemented with the construction of epistemic hierarchies, the scheme of reasoning for the appeal to expert opinion provides no mechanism for establishing a preference for one expert statement over another, making it impossible to reach any rational conclusion as to the likely truth of the matter. Further, it is also argued that other schemes for presumptive argumentation are either unhelpful in themselves or lead to unwanted consequences.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/02691728.2019.1577512
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,172
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.David Christensen - 2007 - Philosophical Review 116 (2):187-217.
Epistemological Puzzles About Disagreement.Richard Feldman - 2006 - In Stephen Hetherington (ed.), Epistemology Futures. Oxford University Press. pp. 216-236.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

When Expert Disagreement Supports the Consensus.Finnur Dellsén - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (1):142-156.
Seat Belt Mandates and Paternalism.Jessica Flanigan - 2017 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 14 (3):291-314.
Seat Belt Mandates and Paternalism.Jessica Flanigan - forthcoming - New Content is Available for Journal of Moral Philosophy.
When Experts Disagree.David Coady - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):68-79.
When Experts Disagree.David Coady - 2006 - Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3 (1):68-79.
What is an Expert?Bruce D. Weinstein - 1993 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 14 (1).
Inferior Disagreement.Maura Priest - 2016 - Acta Analytica 31 (3):263-283.
Why Do Anthropological Experts Disagree?Anne Campbell & Patricia C. Rice - 2008 - In Philip Carl Salzman & Patricia C. Rice (eds.), Thinking Anthropologically: A Practical Guide for Students. Pearson Prentice Hall. pp. 55.
When Experts Disagree.David Coady - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):68-79.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-04-11

Total views
16 ( #668,315 of 2,517,822 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #409,482 of 2,517,822 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes