We often take the testimony of experts for granted. When reading the newspaper or watching a documentary program, it seems reasonable to accept certain claims, provided that they are stated by individuals who have the right sort of credentials. But for areas of genuine controversy, it would be unwise to just accept expert testimony at face value. If we are to take sides in an area of controversy, we ought to be able to explain why a given expert is right and why others who disagree are wrong. There are plenty of instances where experts strongly disagree. For instance, there are doctors who believe acupuncture is an effective treatment for muscuoskeletal pain, and others who believe it doesn’t work, nothing more than an elaborate placebo. In such cases, it might not be obvious whose testimony we ought to trust, especially if one knows little to nothing about medicine. Figuring out who to trust can be complicated and will likely take some time. Through personal experience, I have encountered many friends and family who are disposed to throw their hands up in the air whenever areas of controversy are brought up. How can we—as nonexperts—ever decide who is telling the truth? How can we know? Instead of adopting agnosticism regarding all areas of controversy, most of us, in practice, do listen to some experts and ignore others. For instance, we are more likely to accept the testimony and advice of experts who share our own views. Instead of trying to confirm the beliefs we already hold, or engage in wishful thinking, we ought to critically evaluate competing expert testimony to the best of our ability. In what follows, I will expand upon a proposal developed by the philosopher Alvin Goldman, aimed to help one decide which experts to trust.
First step: Sift out the pseudoexperts
Before discussing the problem of how to choose between
experts, we need to determine who has expertise in the first place. The thought
is that once we eliminate all of the phony experts, we can move on to the
harder questions of how to decide between the genuine experts. Perhaps a
sufficient condition for being an expert in some domain of study would be the possession of an advanced
degree—in the relevant field—awarded by a recognized academic institution. For
instance, an expert in physics would be expected to have a PhD in physics.
However, the knowledge set of your typical PhD is likely to be highly
specialized. For instance, a scientist with a PhD in physics may be an expert
regarding particle physics, but know very little about astrophysics or applied
physics. In some cases, it may be unclear which area of study is the most
relevant to the issue at hand. Here’s one example. For dietary advice, one
might consider a nutritionist to be the most relevant authority to consult.
While nutritionists might know a fair amount about dieting and nutrition, a
better source would be a registered dietician. Dieticians tend to have much
more training in science and medicine than a nutritionist, and have to pass a
comprehensive exam to become certified. Overall, they are more qualified to be
making judgments about dietary claims than nutritionists. Therefore, with
regard to claims about dieting, the relevant experts are dieticians, not
nutritionists. Individuals who purport to be experts on certain matters, but
whom lack the relevant qualifications and/or training should raise red flags.
In summary, before assessing expert testimony, one must try to answer the
following questions:
What does X’s expertise consist in?
Is X’s expertise in any way relevant to the issue at
hand?
Once one establishes that they have found a genuine
expert and more importantly, one whose expertise is relevant to the question at
hand, one must determine whether or not this expert is trustworthy. Are there reasons to doubt his or her testimony?
Steps for analyzing the testimony of true
experts
It can be unhelpful to look at the testimony of one
expert in isolation. From the point of view of a layperson (nonexpert) most
experts tend to be highly persuasive. To get a better sense as to how reliable
their testimony is, try to find an expert who disagrees with them, preferably,
an expert that has had comparable training and experience. After finding two
experts that disagree, it’s time to compare what each of them has to say. The
philosopher Alvin Goldman proposes five ways to determine which expert is more
trustworthy. I will deal with each one in turn and list some of the problems
these guidelines face.
“(1) Read or listen to arguments and counter-arguments
offered by the two experts, whether in a published exchange of views, an oral
debate, or separate defenses of their respective positions.” (1)
Difficulty 1: The evidence and/or arguments discussed
may include esoteric terminology. One may try and listen to the arguments and
counter-arguments but fail to understand or even misunderstand them. Goldman
makes a distinction between esoteric and exoteric terminology. Esoteric terms
are not only unfamiliar to non-experts; they are inaccessible to them. This may
because they involve unfamiliar concepts and theories. Exoteric terms are unfamiliar to
non-experts but can that can be learned and understood by novices without any
specialized training. Grasping exoteric terms may involve a subject to do some
extra reading on the subject, whereas understanding esoteric terms may require
one to become an expert in that field.
Difficulty 2: Superficially convincing arguments could
be made to support one side of the debate, but these arguments may turn out
invalid or contain false premises. If one tries to assess the arguments and
counter-arguments of two disagreeing experts, one better have a decent working
knowledge of informal logic. The expert committing more logical fallacies
possesses fewer solid reasons for their belief. But a valid argument is not
necessarily a sound one. Going back to the first difficulty, non-experts might
not be able to tell whether a premise is true or not. To an expert, a given
premise may be obviously false and contradicted by lots of evidence they are
aware of. But to a layperson, it may seem to be plausible.
“(2) Find out what the opinions of other (putative)
experts on the topic in question. If
most of them agree with expert A, then identify A as your best guide. If most choose expert B, identify B as the
more trustworthy one. In short, go with
the numbers to guide your choice of favored expert.”
Caveat: When it comes to issues where the vast
majority of relevant experts are in agreement, going with the numbers is a good
rule of thumb. For instance, the vast majority of climatologists accept that
the planet is currently going through a warming trend and that this is
primarily due to recent human activity. Should we accept the testimony of
climatologists solely on the basis of consensus? In short, no. There are some possible
scenarios where it would be rational to doubt consensus opinion (e.g. Nazi scientists
during WW2). As long as the consensus position seems to be backed by valid arguments and independent sources of evidence, it is rational to side
with the consensus.
“(3) Consult "meta-experts" about experts A
and B. Try to find out which of them is
the superior expert by asking people in a position to compare and contrast
them. Or people who trained them or have
worked with them.”
The idea is looking for additional experts other than
the two you initially found. They might be in a good position to tell whether
or not experts A or B have compelling arguments, especially if they have
nothing to gain or lose in the debate. Where can one find meta-experts? You’re
likely to find tons of meta-experts if you look through the peer-reviewed literature,
reputable periodicals, or even personal blogs. In today’s age, many scientists
blog to try and educate the general public about their work. One could even
directly contact meta-experts at a local university or one could reach out to
experts through email or on specialized web forums. And if you're lucky enough,
you may personally know some meta-experts that could weigh in on the debate.
“(4) Obtain
evidence about the experts' biases and interests, which might lead them to
self-serving answers of dubious veracity (whatever their underlying
competence).”
In some cases, there is obvious bias and conflicts of
interest at play with a given expert. Whether it is some political or religious
agenda, these factors need to be taken into account. But one should be cautious
when discrediting certain experts. It could be the case that some of the
testimony is perfectly valid, or that their bias or conflicts of interest
played no role in the formation of their beliefs about the issue at hand.
Furthermore, an expert may be extremely biased but turn out to be right.
Therefore, before one discredits an expert on grounds of bias or a conflict of
interest, one must have some independent reason to think that their claims are
wrong. Conspiracy theorists frequently misuse such a guideline when they
discredit all experts who testify against their favored theory. Finding a
potential source of bias (e.g. government funding) for some expert, and then
completely disregarding everything they have to say is intellectually lazy and
dishonest. The implication is that all such experts are lying or saying
misleading things. If it can be shown that either is the case, that would be
the reason to seriously doubt the expert’s testimony, not from just from the
possibility of a conflict of interest.
Another source of bias can be uncovered by carefully
studying the behavior of a given expert. Experts who dismiss alternative
positions out of hand should raise red flags. I say this because most experts
tend to exhibit a certain kind of psychological profile. They tend to be fairly
humble, well-integrated into their epistemic communities, and they seem to be
genuinely interested in the truth. Experts tend to be very cautious when making
controversial claims and admit that their own favored hypotheses could be
mistake. They tend to actively engage their peers in academic journals and at
conferences, try and test their hypotheses, and compare the success or failure
of their own predictions to rival theories. Commenting on the small group of
scientists who endorse the 9/11 conspiracy theories surrounding the tower
collapses, Noam Chomsky has noted that, “They are not doing what scientists and
engineers do when they’ve think they’ve discovered something" (2). Having
studied the phenomenon of conspiracy theories quite extensively, I can vouch
for Chomsky. Many of the “experts” who promote conspiracy theories lack the
psychological profile found amongst genuine experts, and seem to share a number
of opposing psychological traits. For instance, many manifest an excessive
degree of pride or intellectual superiority, they tend to keep within a closed
circle of peers who share their views, and they don't even attempt to convince
the general scientific community about their "findings". These
individuals might even possess the relevant knowledge to assess claims of
interest, but their psychological profile and behavior casts serious doubt upon
their capacity to seriously engage criticism and to critically evaluate their
own positions. It is for this reason that their testimony should be taken with
a grain of salt.
“(5) Gather
evidence of their past track-records and apportion trust as a function of these
track records.”
Gathering evidence of an expert’s track record may
turn out to be a challenge. Good track records of experts may come in the form
of accurate and specific predictions. One might also try to look through their
publication history or get a sense of their reputation amongst peers. Another
way would be to look at an expert’s track record is to see if they have
subscribed to controversial or fringe views in the past. Some experts can just
be contrarians, while others seem to be suffering from crank magnetism. For
instance, James Fetzer, a well-respected philosopher of science who taught critical
thinking for most of his career, believes just about every conspiracy theory.
He not only believes that 9/11 was an inside job, but that no children were
killed at Sandy Hook, that we didn’t land on the moon, and that Paul McCartney
died in the 60’s and was then replaced by someone with the same physical
appearance, personality, and musical talents. In the case of Fetzer, there
seems to be some kind of systematic misapplication of critical thinking going
on (at least when he is theorizing about certain historical events). Those like
Fetzer not only routinely appeal to pseudoexperts, but they accept many
demonstrably false or highly questionable claims, make a number of unwarranted
assumptions about human nature, and are apparently unskilled at making inferences
to the best explanation. Since critical thinking is really a set of skills,
knowledge of certain concepts and strategies related to the subject is not
sufficient for knowledge how.
Conclusion
I believe that if one closely follows all of the advice
outlined above, one will be more likely to acquire true beliefs about the
world. But it is one thing to propose a strategy that makes sense in theory and
quite another to have the strategy actually work for most people. Certain facts
about our psychological limitations (e.g. confirmation bias, cognitive
dissonance) may prevent us from being objective enough to really follow through
with such advice. Nonetheless, we ought to at least try to be as objective as
we can. Given the complexity of the world around us, we all need to appeal to
experts at some time or another, whether it's to find out about our personal
health, or how the world works. If we are going to appeal to experts, and are
genuinely interested in discovering the truth, then it's a good idea to try and
track down the right ones.
Bibliography
1. Goldman, A.
I. (2001). Experts: which ones should you trust?. Philosophy and Phenomenological
Research, 63(1), 85-110.
2. Tuskin, B. (2013). Noam Chomsky has no opinion on
building 7. Retrieved December 05, 2016, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9ra-i6Knc
No comments:
Post a Comment