Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority
University Park, PA, USA: Pennsylvania State University Press (1997)
Abstract
A new pragmatic approach, based on the latest developments in argumentation theory, analyzing appeal to expert opinion as a form of argument. Reliance on authority has always been a common recourse in argumentation, perhaps never more so than today in our highly technological society when knowledge has become so specialized—as manifested, for instance, in the frequent appearance of "expert witnesses" in courtrooms. When is an appeal to the opinion of an expert a reasonable type of argument to make, and when does it become a fallacy? This book provides a method for the evaluation of these appeals in everyday argumentation. Specialized domains of knowledge such as science, medicine, law, and government policy have gradually taken over as the basis on which many of our rational decisions are made daily. Consequently, appeal to expert opinion in these areas has become a powerful type of argument. Challenging an argument based on expert scientific opinion, for example, has become as difficult as it once was to question religious authority. Walton stresses that even in cases where expert opinion is divided, the effect of it can still be so powerful that it overwhelms an individual's ability to make a decision based on personal deliberation of what is right or wrong in a given situation. The book identifies the requirements that make an appeal to expert opinion a reasonable or unreasonable argument. Walton's new pragmatic approach analyzes that appeal as a distinctive form of argument, with an accompanying set of appropriate critical questions matching the form. Throughout the book, a historical survey of the key developments in the evolution of the argument from authority, dating from the time of the ancients, is given, and new light is shed on current problems of "junk science" and battles between experts in legal argumentation.Author's Profile
ISBN(s)
9780271016955 0271016949 (cloth : alk. paper) 0271016957 0271016949 9780271016948
My notes
Similar books and articles
Why Arguments from Expert Opinion are Weak Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.
Douglas Walton, appeal to expert opinion– arguments from authority.Ronald Leenes - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):277-281.
Douglas Walton, Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority Reviewed by.Robert H. Kimball - 1999 - Philosophy in Review 19 (2):154-156.
D.N. Walton, Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. [REVIEW]Mark Vorobej - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (2):251-255.
Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority by Douglas Walton university park, pennsylvania. The pennsylvania state university press, 1997, pp. XIV + 291.Michael Welbourne - 1999 - Philosophy 74 (3):446-460.
The Assessment of Argumentation from Expert Opinion.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
Throwing the Baby Out with the Water: From Reasonably Scrutinizing Authorities to Rampant Scepticism About Expertise.Markus Seidel - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (2):192-218.
The Authority of Citations and Quotations in Academic Papers.Begoña Carrascal - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (2):167-191.
Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts.Jean Goodwin - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):285-296.
On a razor's edge: evaluating arguments from expert opinion.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Argument and Computation 5 (2-3):139-159.
Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry.Axel Gelfert - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science.Roger M. Cooke (ed.) - 1991 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
How to consult an expert? Opinion versus evidence.Thomas Lanzi & Jerome Mathis - 2011 - Theory and Decision 70 (4):447-474.
Analytics
Added to PP
2014-03-09
Downloads
13 (#768,756)
6 months
5 (#155,402)
2014-03-09
Downloads
13 (#768,756)
6 months
5 (#155,402)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
The Appeal to Expert Opinion: Quantitative Support for a Bayesian Network Approach.Adam J. L. Harris, Ulrike Hahn, Jens K. Madsen & Anne S. Hsu - 2016 - Cognitive Science 40 (6):1496-1533.
A normative framework for argument quality: argumentation schemes with a Bayesian foundation.Ulrike Hahn & Jos Hornikx - 2016 - Synthese 193 (6):1833-1873.
Why Arguments from Expert Opinion are Weak Arguments.Moti Mizrahi - 2013 - Informal Logic 33 (1):57-79.