Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Authority Argument Schemes, Types, and Critical Questions.Frank Zenker & Shiyang Yu - 2023 - Argumentation 37 (1):25-51.
    Authority arguments generate support for claims by appealing to an agent’s authority status, rather than to reasons independent of it. With few exceptions, the current literature on argument schemes acknowledges two basic authority types. The _epistemic_ type grounds in knowledge, the_ deontic_ type grounds in power. We review how historically earlier scholarship acknowledged an_ attractiveness-based_ and a _majority-based_ authority type as equally basic type. Crossing these with basic speech act types thus yields authority argument sub-schemes. Focusing on the_ epistemic-assertive_ sub-scheme (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Authority.Charles Arthur Willard - 1990 - Informal Logic 12 (1).
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • Character and Knowledge: Learning from the Speech of Experts. [REVIEW]Christopher W. Tindale - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):341-353.
    This paper discusses the ways in which a person’s character ( ethos ) and a hearer’s emotional response ( pathos ) are part of the complex judgments made about experts’ claims, along with an actual assessment of those claims ( logos ). The analysis is rooted in the work of Aristotle, but expands to consider work on emotion and cognition conducted by Thagard and Gigerenzer. It also draws on some conclusions of the general epistemology of testimony (of which expert testimony (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • The Legitimacy of Pseudo‐Expert Discourse in the Public Sphere.Sarah Sorial - 2017 - Metaphilosophy 48 (3):304-324.
    This article examines the role of expertise in public debate, specifically the ways in which expertise can be mimicked and deployed as “pseudo-expert discourse” to generate legitimacy for views that have otherwise been discredited. The article argues that pseudo-expert discourse having a clear public health or safety impact should be regulated. There have been some attempts to legally regulate this speech through various means; however, these attempts at regulation have been met with fierce resistance, because of free-speech concerns. The article (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • 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.
    In this paper, I argue that many arguments from expert opinion are strong arguments. Therefore, in many cases it is rational to rely on experts since in many cases the fact that an expert says that p makes it highly likely that p is true. I will defend this claim by providing 5 arguments that illuminate and elaborate on 5 crucial claims about expertise. In this way, I aim to undermine recent attempts to establish a rampant scepticism about arguments from (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • Genuine versus bogus scientific controversies: the case of statins.Carlo Martini & Mattia Andreoletti - 2021 - History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 43 (4):1-23.
    Science progresses through debate and disagreement, and scientific controversies play a crucial role in the growth of scientific knowledge. However, not all controversies and disagreements are progressive in science. Sometimes, controversies can be pseudoscientific; in fact, bogus controversies, and what seem like genuine scientific disagreements, can be a distortion of science set up by non-scientific actors. Bogus controversies are detrimental to science because they can hinder scientific progress and eventually bias science-based decisions. The first goal of this paper is to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Experts in science: a view from the trenches.Carlo Martini - 2014 - Synthese 191 (1):3-15.
    In this paper I analyze four so-called “principles of expertise”; that is, good epistemic practices that are normatively motivated by the epistemological literature on expert judgment. I highlight some of the problems that the four principles of expertise run into, when we try to implement them in concrete contexts of application (e.g. in science committees). I suggest some possible alternatives and adjustments to the principles, arguing in general that the epistemology of expertise should be informed both by case studies and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Ad Hominem Arguments, Rhetoric, and Science Communication.Carlo Martini - 2018 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 55 (1):151-166.
    In this paper, I contend that evidence-focused strategies of science communication may be complemented by possibly more effective rhetorical arguments in current public debates on vaccines. I analyse the case of direct science communication - that is, communication of evidence - and show that it is difficult to effectively communicate evidential standards of science in the presence of well-equipped anti-science movements. Instead, I argue that effective rhetorical tools involve ad hominem strategies, that is, arguments involving claims of expertise. I provide (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Comments on 'Black Box Arguments'.Marcin Lewiński - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):447-451.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Public deliberation and the fact of expertise: making experts accountable.Cathrine Holst & Anders Molander - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (3):235-250.
    This paper discusses the conditions for legitimate expert arrangements within a democratic order and from a deliberative systems approach. It is argued that standard objections against the political role of experts are flawed or ill-conceived. The problem that confronts us instead is primarily one of truth-sensitive institutional design: Which mechanisms can contribute to ensuring that experts are really experts and that they use their competencies in the right way? The paper outlines a set of such mechanisms. However, the challenge exceeds (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations