In ‘The Humility Heuristic Or: People Worth Trusting Admit to What They Don’t Know,’ Mattias Skipper defends a heuristic for identifying trustworthy people. In slogan form, the Humility Heuristic says that people worth trusting admit to what they don’t know…. Read More ›
expertise
Coalitions of Trust: Using Epistemic Teams to Identify Experts, Jamie Carlin Watson
I appreciate the opportunity to continue this conversation on how non-experts might identify and, thereby, come to trust experts. While so much of contemporary philosophical discussion might be called destructive—attempts to defeat an “opponent’s” claims through counterexample—this forum has been… Read More ›
What Did We Learn From L’Aquila? Scientist Citizens and Public Communication, Pamela Pietrucci and Leah Ceccarelli
We enter this conversation precisely to continue this productive exchange on the lessons to be learned from L’Aquila, grounding our response to both DeVasto and Felbacher-Escamilla on our previous work about the same case published in 2019 in Rhetoric &… Read More ›
Finding the Snark Together: A Response to Watson and Hinton, Johnny Brennan
I would like to begin by thanking Jamie Watson (2020) and Martin Hinton (2020) for their charitable treatments of my paper (2020) and their illuminating replies. They are right to even further temper my already reserved optimism about novices’ capabilities… Read More ›
Can Novices be Taught to Choose Trustworthy Experts? Optimism for Reasoning—A Reply to Johnny Brennan, Martin Hinton
In his article “Can Novices Trust Themselves to Choose Trustworthy Experts? Reasons for (Reserved) Optimism” (2020), Johnny Brennan does two things. He illustrates the problem of the identification of experts, which has caused a great deal of head-scratching for scholars… Read More ›
Hunting the Expert: The Precarious Epistemic Position of a Novice, Jamie Carlin Watson
In Lewis Carroll’s poem, “The Hunting of the Snark,” ten adventurers set out to find an elusive, likely dangerous, and possibly mythical, creature called a “Snark.” They plot their course with a map that shows only ocean—no land—and their captain… Read More ›
Overflow, Expertise, and the L’Aquila Case, Christian J. Feldbacher-Escamilla
I would like to thank Danielle DeVasto for her careful discussion of my (2019) reconstruction and for putting it into the broader context of research on the L’Aquila 2009 case. Before coming to the above outlined discussion of overflow, its… Read More ›
Building on Aggregate Ethos: A Response to Hartelius, Devon Moriarty
The intimate relationship between expertise and ethos is mediated by rhetoric. Complex articulations of these social, political, and rhetorical relationships are found in Reddit’s r/science Ask-Me-Anything (AMA) series that allows a scientific expert to engage in an online question-and-answer period… Read More ›
Objective Expertise and Functionalist Constraints: A Comment on Croce, Christian Quast
Any conceptual investigation into a given phenomenon may fail in several ways. It may be, for instance, inconsistent, too inclusive or exclusive, or even materially inappropriate. In a recent reply, Michel Croce raises all of these objections to what I… Read More ›
Balancing the Normativity of Expertise, Markus Seidel
In his paper “Towards a Balanced Account of Expertise” (2018) Christian Quast aims “to argue against a widespread tendency to conflate expertise with either the individual possession of relative competences or a certain role ascription” (2018, 397). Instead, he claims… Read More ›