Results for 'experts'

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  7
    Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments From Authority.Douglas Neil Walton - 1997 - University Park, PA, USA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   87 citations  
  2. Expert Opinion and Second‐Hand Knowledge.Matthew A. Benton - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (2):492-508.
    Expert testimony figures in recent debates over how best to understand the norm of assertion and the domain-specific epistemic expectations placed on testifiers. Cases of experts asserting with only isolated second-hand knowledge (Lackey 2011, 2013) have been used to shed light on whether knowledge is sufficient for epistemically permissible assertion. I argue that relying on such cases of expert testimony introduces several problems concerning how we understand expert knowledge, and the sharing of such knowledge through testimony. Refinements are needed (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   21 citations  
  3.  96
    Expert System for Castor Diseases and Diagnosis.Fatima M. Salman & Samy S. Abu-Naser - 2019 - International Journal of Engineering and Information Systems (IJEAIS) 3 (3):1-10.
    Background: The castor bean is a large grassy or semi-wooden shrub or small tree. Any part of the castor plant parts can suffering from a disease that weakens the ability to grow and eliminates its production. Therefore, in this paper will identify the pests and diseases present in castor culture and detect the symptoms in each disease. Also images is showing the symptom form in this disease. Objectives: The main objective of this expert system is to obtain appropriate diagnosis of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  4. Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?Alvin I. Goldman - 2001 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (1):85-110.
    Mainstream epistemology is a highly theoretical and abstract enterprise. Traditional epistemologists rarely present their deliberations as critical to the practical problems of life, unless one supposes—as Hume, for example, did not—that skeptical worries should trouble us in our everyday affairs. But some issues in epistemology are both theoretically interesting and practically quite pressing. That holds of the problem to be discussed here: how laypersons should evaluate the testimony of experts and decide which of two or more rival experts (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   265 citations  
  5. An Expert System for Diagnosing Shortness of Breath in Infants and Children.Jihan Y. AbuEl-Reesh & Samy S. Abu-Naser - 2018 - International Journal of Engineering and Information Systems (IJEAIS) 1 (4):89-101.
    Background: With the coming of the Industrial Revolution, the levels of pollution grow significantly. This Technological development contributed to the worsening of shortness breath problems in great shape. especially in infants and children. There are many shortness breath diseases that infants and children face in their lives. Shortness of breath is one of a very serious symptom in children and infants and should never be ignored. Objectives: Along these lines, the main goal of this expert system is to help physician (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  6. An Expert System for Depression Diagnosis.Izzeddin A. Alshawwa, Mohammed Elkahlout, Hosni Qasim El-Mashharawi & Samy S. Abu-Naser - 2019 - International Journal of Academic Health and Medical Research (IJAHMR) 3 (4):20-27.
    Background: Depression (major depressive disorder) is a common and serious medical illness that negatively affects how you feel, the way you think and how you act. Fortunately, it is also treatable. Depression causes feelings of sadness and/or a loss of interest in activities once enjoyed. It can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems and can decrease a person’s ability to function at work and at home. Depression affects an estimated one in 15 adults (6.7%) in any given (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  7. Proposed Expert System for Calculating Inheritance in Islam.Alaa N. Akkila & Samy S. Abu Naser - 2016 - World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development 2 (9):38-48.
    The truth of every human being is the end his life with death, and this leads to leaving assets and funds for those after him and can lead to hate between the heirs, it has made a point of Islamic law on all aspects of life, including the subject of the inheritance of the deceased. The main problem is how to get the knowledge of the basics of inheritance. This paper reviews work done in the use of expert system software (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  8. When Expert Disagreement Supports the Consensus.Finnur Dellsén - 2018 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (1):142-156.
    It is often suggested that disagreement among scientific experts is a reason not to trust those experts, even about matters on which they are in agreement. In direct opposition to this view, I argue here that the very fact that there is disagreement among experts on a given issue provides a positive reason for non-experts to trust that the experts really are justified in their attitudes towards consensus theories. I show how this line of thought (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  9.  66
    Argument From Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System.David M. Godden & Douglas Walton - 2006 - Ratio Juris 19 (3):261-286.
    While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  10. An Expert System for Arthritis Diseases Diagnosis Using SL5 Object.Hosni Qasim El-Mashharawi, Izzeddin A. Alshawwa, Mohammed Elkahlout & Samy S. Abu-Naser - 2019 - International Journal of Academic Health and Medical Research (IJAHMR) 3 (4):28-35.
    Background: Arthritis is very common but is not well understood. Actually, “arthritis” is not a single disease; it is an informal way of referring to joint pain or joint disease. There are more than 100 different types of arthritis and related conditions. People of all ages, sexes and races can and do have arthritis, and it is the leading cause of disability in America. More than 50 million adults and 300,000 children have some type of arthritis. It is most common (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  11. Experts and Peer Disagreement.Jennifer Lackey - 2018 - In Matthew A. Benton, John Hawthorne & Dani Rabinowitz (eds.), Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 228-245.
  12. Expert Judgment for Climate Change Adaptation.Erica Thompson, Roman Frigg & Casey Helgeson - 2016 - Philosophy of Science 83 (5):1110-1121.
    Climate change adaptation is largely a local matter, and adaptation planning can benefit from local climate change projections. Such projections are typically generated by accepting climate model outputs in a relatively uncritical way. We argue, based on the IPCC’s treatment of model outputs from the CMIP5 ensemble, that this approach is unwarranted and that subjective expert judgment should play a central role in the provision of local climate change projections intended to support decision-making.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  13. Expert Deference About the Epistemic and Its Metaepistemological Significance.Michele Palmira - 2020 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 50 (4):524-538.
    This paper focuses on the phenomenon of forming one’s judgement about epistemic matters, such as whether one has some reason not to believe false propositions, on the basis of the opinion of somebody one takes to be an expert about them. The paper pursues three aims. First, it argues that some cases of expert deference about epistemic matters are suspicious. Secondly, it provides an explanation of such a suspiciousness. Thirdly, it draws the metaepistemological implications of the proposed explanation.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  14. Expert System for Chest Pain in Infants and Children.Randa A. Khella & Samy S. Abu-Naser - 2018 - International Journal of Engineering and Information Systems (IJEAIS) 1 (4):138-148.
    Chest pain is the pain felt in the chest by infants, children and adolescents. In most cases the pain is not associated with the heart. It is mainly recognized by the observance or report of pain by the infant, child or adolescent by reports of distress by parents or care givers. Chest pain is not unusual in children. Lots of children are seen in ambulatory clinics, emergency rooms and hospitals and cardiology clinics. Usually there is a benign cause for the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  15. Experts and Deviants: The Story of Agentive Control.Wayne Wu - 2016 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 92 (2):101-26.
    This essay argues that current theories of action fail to explain agentive control because they have left out a psychological capacity central to control: attention. This makes it impossible to give a complete account of the mental antecedents that generate action. By investigating attention, and in particular the intention-attention nexus, we can characterize the functional role of intention in an illuminating way, explicate agentive control so that we have a uniform explanation of basic cases of causal deviance in action as (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   38 citations  
  16. Expert-Oriented Abilities Vs. Novice-Oriented Abilities: An Alternative Account of Epistemic Authority.Michel Croce - 2018 - Episteme 15 (4):476-498.
    According to a recent account of epistemic authority proposed by Linda Zagzebski (2012), it is rational for laypersons to believe on authority when they conscientiously judge that the authority is more likely to form true beliefs and avoid false ones than they are in some domain. Christoph Jäger (2016) has recently raised several objections to her view. By contrast, I argue that both theories fail to adequately capture what epistemic authority is, and I offer an alternative account grounded in the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  17. When Experts Disagree.David Coady - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):68-79.
    Alvin Goldman has criticized the idea that, when evaluating the opinions of experts who disagree, a novice should “go by the numbers”. Although Goldman is right that this is often a bad idea, his argument involves an appeal to a principle, which I call the non-independence principle, which is not in general true. Goldman's formal argument for this principle depends on an illegitimate assumption, and the examples he uses to make it seem intuitively plausible are not convincing. The failure (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  18. Expert Knowledge by Perception.Madeleine Ransom - 2020 - Philosophy 95 (3):309-335.
    Does the scope of beliefs that people can form on the basis of perception remain fixed, or can it be amplified with learning? The answer to this question is important for our understanding of why and when we ought to trust experts, and also for assessing the plausibility of epistemic foundationalism. The empirical study of perceptual expertise suggests that experts can indeed enrich their perceptual experiences through learning. Yet this does not settle the epistemic status of their beliefs. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  19. Moral Experts, Deference & Disagreement.Jonathan Matheson, Nathan Nobis & Scott McElreath - 2018 - In Nathan Nobis, Scott McElreath & Jonathan Matheson (eds.), Moral Expertise. Springer Verlag.
    We sometimes seek expert guidance when we don’t know what to think or do about a problem. In challenging cases concerning medical ethics, we may seek a clinical ethics consultation for guidance. The assumption is that the bioethicist, as an expert on ethical issues, has knowledge and skills that can help us better think about the problem and improve our understanding of what to do regarding the issue. The widespread practice of ethics consultations raises these questions and more: -/- • (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  20. 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   12 citations  
  21. Moral Experts.Peter Singer - 1972 - Analysis 32 (4):115 - 117.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   68 citations  
  22.  32
    Do Publics Share Experts’ Concerns About Brain–Computer Interfaces? A Trinational Survey on the Ethics of Neural Technology.Matthew Sample, Sebastian Sattler, David Rodriguez-Arias, Stefanie Blain-Moraes & Eric Racine - 2019 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 2019 (6):1242-1270.
    Since the 1960s, scientists, engineers, and healthcare professionals have developed brain–computer interface (BCI) technologies, connecting the user’s brain activity to communication or motor devices. This new technology has also captured the imagination of publics, industry, and ethicists. Academic ethics has highlighted the ethical challenges of BCIs, although these conclusions often rely on speculative or conceptual methods rather than empirical evidence or public engagement. From a social science or empirical ethics perspective, this tendency could be considered problematic and even technocratic because (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  23.  94
    Trusting Experts and Epistemic Humility in Disability.Anita Ho - 2011 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4 (2):102-123.
    It is often taken for granted that the professional–patient relationship is one of trust, particularly given that these clinicians are “experts” in their clinical domain. Nonetheless, trusting grants discretionary powers to the trustee, making the truster vulnerable to the trustee (Rogers and Ballantyne 2008). In particular, some patient groups carry certain social vulnerabilities that can be exacerbated when they extend trust to health-care providers (HCPs). Informed by the feminist literature on epistemic hierarchy and oppression, this paper examines how calls (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   25 citations  
  24.  51
    Expert Trespassing Testimony and the Ethics of Science Communication.Mikkel Gerken - 2018 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 49 (3):299-318.
    Scientific expert testimony is crucial to public deliberation, but it is associated with many pitfalls. This article identifies one—namely, expert trespassing testimony—which may be characterized, crudely, as the phenomenon of experts testifying outside their domain of expertise. My agenda is to provide a more precise characterization of this phenomenon and consider its ramifications for the role of science in society. I argue that expert trespassing testimony is both epistemically problematic and morally problematic. Specifically, I will argue that scientific (...) are subject to a particular obligation. Roughly, this is the obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of scientific expertise in certain contexts. Thus, I argue that scientists who possess expert knowledge are confronted with hard questions about when and how to testify and, therefore, that being a scientific expert comes with great responsibility. Consequently, I provide a concrete “expert guideline” according to which scientific experts, in certain contexts, face an obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of expertise. Furthermore, I consider a number of the conditions in which the guideline is waived or overridden. On this basis, I consider the broader aspects of the roles of scientific experts in a society with a high division of cognitive labor that calls for trust in scientific expert testimony. (shrink)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  25.  49
    Expert Communication and the Self-Defeating Codes of Scientific Ethics.Hugh Desmond - 2021 - American Journal of Bioethics 21 (1):24-26.
    Codes of ethics currently offer no guidance to scientists acting in capacity of expert. Yet communicating their expertise is one of the most important activities of scientists. Here I argue that expert communication has a specifically ethical dimension, and that experts must face a fundamental trade-off between "actionability" and "transparency" when communicating. Some recommendations for expert communication are suggested.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26.  29
    Experts and Bias: When is the Interest-Based Objection to Expert Argumentation Sound? [REVIEW]Frank Zenker - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):355-370.
    I discuss under what conditions the objection that an expert’s argument is biased by her self-interest can be a meaningful and sound argumentative move. I suggest replacing the idea of bias qua self-interest by that of a conflict of interests, exploit the distinction between an expert context and a public context, and hold that the objection can be meaningful. Yet, the evaluation is overall negative, because the motivational role of self-interest for human behavior remains unclear. Moreover, if recent social-psychological results (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  27.  29
    Expert or Esoteric? Philosophers Attribute Knowledge Differently Than All Other Academics.Christina Starmans & Ori Friedman - 2020 - Cognitive Science 44 (7).
    Academics across widely ranging disciplines all pursue knowledge, but they do so using vastly different methods. Do these academics therefore also have different ideas about when someone possesses knowledge? Recent experimental findings suggest that intuitions about when individuals have knowledge may vary across groups; in particular, the concept of knowledge espoused by the discipline of philosophy may not align with the concept held by laypeople. Across two studies, we investigate the concept of knowledge held by academics across seven disciplines (N (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  28.  86
    Aesthetic Experts, Guides to Value.Dominic Mciver Lopes - 2015 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 73 (3):235-246.
    A theory of aesthetic value should explain the performance of aesthetic experts, for aesthetic experts are agents who track aesthetic value. Aesthetic empiricism, the theory that an item's aesthetic value is its power to yield aesthetic pleasure, suggests that aesthetic experts are best at locating aesthetic pleasure, especially given aesthetic internalism, the view that aesthetic reasons always have motivating force. Problems with empiricism and internalism open the door to an alternative. Aesthetic experts perform a range of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  29.  54
    For Experts Only? Access to Hospital Ethics Committees.George J. Agich & Stuart J. Youngner - 1991 - Hastings Center Report 21 (5):17-24.
  30. Experts: What They Are and How We Recognize Them—a Discussion of Alvin Goldman’s Views.Oliver R. Scholz - 2009 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 79 (1):187-205.
    What are experts? Are there only experts in a subjective sense or are there also experts in an objective sense? And how, if at all, may non-experts recognize experts in an objective sense? In this paper, I approach these important questions by discussing Alvin I. Goldman's thoughts about how to define objective epistemic authority and about how non-experts are able to identify experts. I argue that a multiple epistemic desiderata approach is superior to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  31. The Epistemic Value of Expert Autonomy.Finnur Dellsén - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2):344-361.
    According to an influential Enlightenment ideal, one shouldn't rely epistemically on other people's say-so, at least not if one is in a position to evaluate the relevant evidence for oneself. However, in much recent work in social epistemology, we are urged to dispense with this ideal, which is seen as stemming from a misguided focus on isolated individuals to the exclusion of groups and communities. In this paper, I argue that that an emphasis on the social nature of inquiry should (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  32. Expert Testimony and Epistemological Free-Riding: The Mmr Controversy.Stephen John - 2011 - Philosophical Quarterly 61 (244):496-517.
    Using the controversy over the MMR vaccine, I consider the reasons why non-experts should defer to experts, and I sketch a model for understanding cases where they fail to defer. I first suggest that an intuitively plausible model of the expert/non-expert relationship is complicated by shifting epistemic standards. One possible moderate response to this challenge, based on a more complex notion of non-experts' relationship with experts, seems unappealing as an account of the MMR controversy. A more (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  33.  24
    Ethics Expert Testimony: Against the Skeptics.G. J. Agich & B. J. Spielman - 1997 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (4):381-403.
    There is great skepticism about the admittance of expert normative ethics testimony into evidence. However, a practical analysis of the way ethics testimony has been used in courts of law reveals that the skeptical position is itself based on assumptions that are controversial. We argue for an alternative way to understand such expert testimony. This alternative understanding is based on the practice of clinical ethics.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  34. Are Philosophers Expert Intuiters?Jonathan M. Weinberg, Chad Gonnerman, Cameron Buckner & Joshua Alexander - 2010 - Philosophical Psychology 23 (3):331-355.
    Recent experimental philosophy arguments have raised trouble for philosophers' reliance on armchair intuitions. One popular line of response has been the expertise defense: philosophers are highly-trained experts, whereas the subjects in the experimental philosophy studies have generally been ordinary undergraduates, and so there's no reason to think philosophers will make the same mistakes. But this deploys a substantive empirical claim, that philosophers' training indeed inculcates sufficient protection from such mistakes. We canvass the psychological literature on expertise, which indicates that (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   147 citations  
  35. Moral experts.Peter Singer - 1972 - Analysis 32 (4):115.
    No categories
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   40 citations  
  36. Moral Intuitions: Are Philosophers Experts?Kevin Tobia, Wesley Buckwalter & Stephen Stich - 2013 - Philosophical Psychology 26 (5):629-638.
    Recently psychologists and experimental philosophers have reported findings showing that in some cases ordinary people's moral intuitions are affected by factors of dubious relevance to the truth of the content of the intuition. Some defend the use of intuition as evidence in ethics by arguing that philosophers are the experts in this area, and philosophers' moral intuitions are both different from those of ordinary people and more reliable. We conducted two experiments indicating that philosophers and non-philosophers do indeed sometimes (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   81 citations  
  37.  2
    The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and its Semantics.Jerry A. Fodor - 1994 - MIT Press.
    Written in a highly readable, irreverent style, The Elm and the Expert provides a lively discussion of semantic issues about mental representation, with special attention to issues raised by Frege's problem, Twin cases, and the putative indeterminacy of reference. Bound to be widely read and much discussed, The Elm and the Expert, written in Jerry Fodor's usual highly readable, irreverent style, provides a lively discussion of semantic issues about mental representation, with special attention to issues raised by Frege's problem, Twin (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   134 citations  
  38.  10
    An Expert in What?: The Need to Clarify Meaning and Expectations in “The Expert Patient”.Stephen Tyreman - 2005 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (2):153-157.
    .This paper critiques particular aspects of the published UK government Department of Health’s proposal to promote ‘The Expert Patient’ as a way of enhancing patient autonomy and reducing reliance on limited health care resources. Although the broad aims of the report are supported the detail is criticised on the basis that lack of clarity over key terms, including ‘expert’ ‘illness’ and ‘disease’, means that there is no clear focus for action and threatens to undermine the effectiveness of the proposals.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  39.  44
    Judging Expert Trustworthiness: The Difference Between Believing and Following the Science.Matt Bennett - forthcoming - Social Epistemology.
    Expert-informed public policy often depends on a degree of public trust in the relevant expert authorities. But if lay citizens are not themselves authorities on the relevant area of expertise, how can they make good judgements about the trustworthiness of those who claim such authority? I argue that the answer to this question depends on the kind of trust under consideration. Specifically, I maintain that a distinction between epistemic trust and recommendation trust has consequences for novices judging the trustworthiness of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40.  18
    The Expert Patient: Valid Recognition or False Hope?David Badcott - 2005 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (2):173-178.
    .The United Kingdom Department of Health initiative on “The Expert Patient” reflects recent trends in political philosophy, ethics and health services research. The overall objective of the initiative is to encourage patients, particularly those suffering from chronic conditions to become more actively involved in decisions concerning their treatment. In doing so there would be an expectation of better patient compliance and a resultant improvement in quality of life. Despite these anticipated beneficial influences on health outcomes, there may be a danger (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  41. When Experts Argue: Explaining the Best and the Worst of Reasoning. [REVIEW]Hugo Mercier - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):313-327.
    Expert reasoning is responsible for some of the most stunning human achievements, but also for some of the most disastrous decisions ever made. The argumentative theory of reasoning has proven very effective at explaining the pattern of reasoning’s successes and failures. In the present article, it is expanded to account for expert reasoning. The argumentative theory predicts that reasoning should display a strong confirmation bias. If argument quality is not sufficiently high in a domain, the confirmation bias will make (...) tap into their vast knowledge to defend whatever opinion they hold, with polarization and overconfidence as expected results. By contrast, experts should benefit even more from the power of group discussion to make the best of the confirmation bias—when they genuinely disagree that is, otherwise polarization is again likely to ensue. When experts interact with laymen other mechanisms can take the lead, in particular trust calibration and consistency checking. They can yield poor outcomes if experts do not have a sustained interaction with laymen, or if the laymen have strong opinions when they witness a debate between experts. Seeing reasoning as a mechanism of epistemic vigilance aimed at finding and evaluating arguments helps make better sense of expert reasoning performance, be it in individual ratiocination, in debates with other experts, or in interactions with laymen. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  42. Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science.Roger M. Cooke (ed.) - 1991 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
    This book is an extensive survey and critical examination of the literature on the use of expert opinion in scientific inquiry and policy making. The elicitation, representation, and use of expert opinion is increasingly important for two reasons: advancing technology leads to more and more complex decision problems, and technologists are turning in greater numbers to "expert systems" and other similar artifacts of artificial intelligence. Cooke here considers how expert opinion is being used today, how an expert's uncertainty is or (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  43.  5
    Expert Perspectives on Oversight for Unregulated mHealth Research: Empirical Data and Commentary.Laura M. Beskow, Catherine M. Hammack-Aviran, Kathleen M. Brelsford & P. Pearl O'Rourke - 2020 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 48 (S1):138-146.
    In qualitative interviews with a diverse group of experts, the vast majority believed unregulated researchers should seek out independent oversight. Reasons included the need for objectivity, protecting app users from research risks, and consistency in standards for the ethical conduct of research. Concerns included burdening minimal risk research and limitations in current systems of oversight. Literature and analysis supports the use of IRBs even when not required by regulations, and the need for evidence-based improvements in IRB processes.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  44. Wisdom as an Expert Skill.Jason D. Swartwood - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (3):511-528.
    Practical wisdom is the intellectual virtue that enables a person to make reliably good decisions about how, all-things-considered, to live. As such, it is a lofty and important ideal to strive for. It is precisely this loftiness and importance that gives rise to important questions about wisdom: Can real people develop it? If so, how? What is the nature of wisdom as it manifests itself in real people? I argue that we can make headway answering these questions by modeling wisdom (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  45.  7
    Scientists as Political Experts: Atomic Scientists and Their Claims for Expertise on International Relations, 1945–1947.S. Waqar H. Zaidi - 2021 - Centaurus 63 (1):17-31.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46. Expert Deference as a Belief Revision Schema.Joe Roussos - 2020 - Synthese (1-2):1-28.
    When an agent learns of an expert's credence in a proposition about which they are an expert, the agent should defer to the expert and adopt that credence as their own. This is a popular thought about how agents ought to respond to (ideal) experts. In a Bayesian framework, it is often modelled by endowing the agent with a set of priors that achieves this result. But this model faces a number of challenges, especially when applied to non-ideal agents (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47.  56
    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.
    The appeal to expert opinion is an argument form that uses the verdict of an expert to support a position or hypothesis. A previous scheme-based treatment of the argument form is formalized within a Bayesian network that is able to capture the critical aspects of the argument form, including the central considerations of the expert's expertise and trustworthiness. We propose this as an appropriate normative framework for the argument form, enabling the development and testing of quantitative predictions as to how (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  48.  61
    Scientific Consensus and Expert Testimony in Courts: Lessons From the Bendectin Litigation.Boaz Miller - 2016 - Foundations of Science 21 (1):15-33.
    A consensus in a scientific community is often used as a resource for making informed public-policy decisions and deciding between rival expert testimonies in legal trials. This paper contains a social-epistemic analysis of the high-profile Bendectin drug controversy, which was decided in the courtroom inter alia by deference to a scientific consensus about the safety of Bendectin. Drawing on my previously developed account of knowledge-based consensus, I argue that the consensus in this case was not knowledge based, hence courts’ deference (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  49. The Elm and the Expert: Mentalese and Its Semantics.Jerry A. Fodor - 1994 - MIT Press.
    This book is largely a reconsideration of the arguments that are supposed to ground this consensus.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   242 citations  
  50. Arguments From Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias.Moti Mizrahi - 2018 - Argumentation 32 (2):175-195.
    Accounts of arguments from expert opinion take it for granted that expert judgments count as (defeasible) evidence for propositions, and so an argument that proceeds from premises about what an expert judges to a conclusion that the expert is probably right is a strong argument. In Mizrahi (2013), I consider a potential justification for this assumption, namely, that expert judgments are significantly more likely to be true than novice judgments, and find it wanting because of empirical evidence suggesting that expert (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
1 — 50 / 1000