Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-06-02T05:31:05.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

EXPERTISE AND AUTHORITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2019

Coran Stewart
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Experts use their superior skills and understanding to mediate between evidence in some domain and non-experts. But how should we understand the proper relationship between experts and non-experts? In this paper, I present two ways of conceiving experts’ mediating role from the perspective of non-experts: the Authority View and the Advisor View. Jennifer Lackey (2018) has criticized the Authority View and defended the Advisor View. I defend an account of epistemic authority that avoids her criticisms while arguing the Advisor View lacks the advantages she claims. Ultimately, I present a hybrid approach according to which whether we should treat experts as authorities or advisors varies depending upon the presence of certain epistemic and moral concerns.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 420 - 437
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Begby, E. 2013. ‘The Epistemology of Prejudice.’ Thought: A Journal of Philosophy, 2: 90–9.Google Scholar
Boyd, K. 2017. ‘Testifying Understanding.’ Episteme, 14: 103–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, M. 2006. ‘Two Approaches to the Study of Experts’ Characteristics.’ In Ericsson, K. A., Charness, N., Feltovich, P. J. and Hoffman, R. R. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, pp. 21–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, R. 2014. ‘Moral Testimony Pessimism: A Defence.’ Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 88: 129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croce, M. 2018. ‘Expert-Oriented Abilities Vs. Novice-Oriented Abilities: An Alternative Account of Epistemic Authority.’ Episteme, 15: 476–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates 1953 SLT 54.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. 2014. ‘Authority and Reason Giving.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 89: 296–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardiner, G. 2012. ‘Understanding, Integration, and Epistemic Value.’ Acta Analytica, 27: 163–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 2001. ‘Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63: 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. 2018. ‘Expertise.’ Topoi, 37: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, E. 2016. ‘Social Epistemology and the Acquisition of Understanding.’ In Grimm, S., Baumberger, C. and Ammon, S. (eds), Explaining Understanding: New Perspectives from Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science, pp. 293–317. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grimm, S. 2014. ‘Understanding as Knowledge of Causes.’ In Fairweather, A. (ed.), Virtue Epistemology Naturalized, pp. 329–45. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, A. 2009. ‘Moral Testimony and Moral Epistemology.’ Ethics, 120: 94–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, A. 2010. The Beloved Self: Morality and the Challenge from Egoism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, C. 2016. ‘Epistemic Authority, Preemptive Reasons, and Understanding.’ Episteme, 13: 167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, A. 2007. ‘Epistemic Authority, Testimony, and the Transmission of Knowledge.’ Episteme, 4: 368–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, A. 2014a. ‘Trust and Belief: A Preemptive Reasons Account.’ Synthese, 191: 2593–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, A. 2014b. ‘Zagzebski on Authority and Preemption in the Domain of Belief.’ European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 6: 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, J. 2009. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lackey, J. 2018. ‘Experts and Peer Disagreement.’ In Benton, M. A., Hawthorne, J. and Rabinowitz, D. (eds), Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, pp. 228–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGrath, S. 2009. ‘The Puzzle of Pure Moral Deference.’ Philosophical Perspectives, 23: 321–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrath, S. 2011. ‘Skepticism About Moral Expertise as a Puzzle for Moral Realism.’ Journal of Philosophy, 108: 111–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, A. L. 2015. ‘Moral Testimony Pessimism and the Uncertain Value of Authenticity.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 92 (3): 1–24.Google Scholar
Morris-Reich, A. 2016. Race and Photography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, T. 2017. The Death of Expertise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nickel, P. 2001. ‘Moral Testimony and its Authority.’ Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 4: 253–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plous, S. 1993. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 2006. ‘The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception.’ University of Minnesota Law Review, 90: 1003–44.Google Scholar
Rhomberg, M. and Stehr, N. 2007. ‘Experts.’ In Ritzer, G. (ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology Online. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1972. ‘Moral Experts.’ Analysis, 32: 115–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 2012. Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 2014. ‘Epistemic Authority and its Critics.’ European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 6: 168–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar