Trust in Expert Knowledge

The article considers the problem of trust in experts as knowers. The problem is construed in the light of the affirmation and criticism of expert knowledge in the political aspect. J. Brennan seeks to show the need for a political system in which only epistemically competent agents may participate in political life. The reason for his argument is that nowadays the people (Americans) are mostly uneducated to be able to make political decisions, which could have grave consequences. In contrast, the concept of expert examination is criticized, this criticism seeks to deprive experts of political authority and thereby protect the egalitarian democratic system. These argument patterns reproduce similar stances endorsed by Plato and Aristotle, who respectively promoted the rule of knowers and the rule of polis as ensemble of citizens, not only experts. In particular, the arguments of J. Reiss are examined, which emphasize the disagreement among experts and the bias of experts. As the author argues, these arguments reproduce the thoughts of Sextus Empiricus against the trust in the sage. Given the general direction of such criticism, an argument is also brought showing the possibility of deception on the part of experts as a basis for mistrust (Section 1). In the face of such a problematic field, the author wants to show the grounds for epistemic trust in experts and avert these objections, based on the results of analytic social epistemologists. Expert knowledge is based on the concepts "testimony" and "epistemic authority", which are discussed in Section 2. Two approaches to evidence are presented in the light of the apparent antinomy of authority and autonomy. Based on the arguments of Linda Zagzebski, it is shown that the epistemic agent has sufficient grounds for trusting the testimonies of other people, since epistemic egoism as an extreme version of autonomy significantly limits our knowledge, and also since we are warranted to trust the testimony of epistemic authority if this allows us to better achieve our epistemic goals. Section 3 presents the concept and criteria of an expert put forward by Alvin Goldman, which help distinguish a true expert from a false one. These criteria presuppose an expert community that allows monitoring the activities of experts and depriving them of their expert status in case of violation of research ethics. In particular, it is emphasized in Section 4 that the possibility of disagreement is a condition of trust in experts, since it allows to identify errors and abuses by experts.

Keywords

Authors

References