This module returns to the question of our reliance on experts. In the last module, when we looked at democracy, we have compared democracy with an epistocracy, where the experts rule (this was the society Plato thought was preferable). This week we look at the topic of experts from a different angle: broadly the angle of epistemology.
Each of us believes in many things for which we ourselves have no evidence. That global temperatures are rising, or that smoking is causing cancer. We often believe this because we trust the experts on the relevant matter. We will look at two questions
- Is it rational to rely on experts? Wouldn't it be better if we all thought for ourselves - and followed the enlightenment ideal (one that I myself gave a lecture on just a few weeks ago when I taught the first chapters of this book)?
- How, given that we cannot understand the evidence ourselves, should we find the experts we should trust and rely on?
Is epistemic independence an ideal?
Our first question concerns whether it is rational to believe something on the authority of others. The ideal of epistemic independence, where we question authority, is a central part of the enlightenment tradition. But is it a good ideal? Learn about it in the first part of the lecture.
For reflection
- In part III, Hardwig puts his main question in terms of whether the following is possible: B knows that p because B knows that A knows that p. But this, it seems to me, is evidently unproblematic: from B knows that A knows that p it follows logically that A knows that p and from that it follows logically that p is true. This is something that an introduction to philosophy can teach B. But then B knows that what he knows logically entails p, but that is surely evidence for p? Can Hardwig point be put in a better way?
-
What do you make of the ideal of thinking for yourself and critically questioning authority?Are there aspects of the ideal that can be salvaged from Hardwig's critique, or should the ideal be given up?
Five methods for finding good experts
Now let's suppose that it is rational to sometimes rely on the authority of others. The next questions is: but who? Whose opinion should we trust. The main problem arises in domains where we are ourselves not experts. We can't really evaluate the experts directly, given that we don't don't their domain of expertise. In his article, Alvin Goldman gives us five methods for finding out which experts we should rely on. Learn about it here.
For reflection
- Lots of people believe the Qanon conspiracy theory. Use the resources regarding Method 2 and some research online to argue why the numbers should not count in this case.
- Think about a concrete case where you have recently wondered which expertise to trust. Rely on Goldman's 5 methods to find out who you should trust
For discussion and further thought
- Give an example where you could use Goldman's discussion of experts in today's societal debates to find out who the experts are that we can and should trust.