Chapter 6 – Evidence and Experts (Experts Excerpt) Guided Reading Notes

Chapter 6 – Evidence and Experts (Experts Excerpt) Guided Reading Notes

Introduction

  • Instructions: The guided reading notes can be completed in either typed or handwritten format.

Expert Opinion

  • Instant Expertise Probability: The probability of becoming an instant expert is pretty low, and experts are not—and never have been— omniscient, but neither are they clueless.
  • Role of Non-experts: Nonexperts can come to understand complex issues if they respect evidence, look for guidance, and practice critical thinking.
  • Value of Experts: The insight and know-how of experts—when approached critically and used wisely—can help us live more intelligently and avoid fallacies.
  • Definition of an Expert: An expert is someone who is more knowledgeable, skilled, or experienced in a particular subject area or field than most others are.
  • Reason to Trust Experts: Experts in professions and fields of knowledge provide us with justifications for believing a claim because, in their specialty areas, they are more likely to be right than we are.
Reasons Why Experts Are Likely to Be Right
  1. Extensive Study: Experts typically engage in rigorous study and research on their topic, leading to a deeper understanding.
  2. Consistent Experience: Experts have practical experience in their field, allowing them to assess and interpret information more effectively.

Commonsense Principles of Critical Thinking

  • General Principle: Good critical thinkers are cautious about expert opinion, guiding their use of experts by commonsense principles.
  • Conflict with Background Information: The most basic principle is this: If a claim conflicts with background information, we have good reason to doubt it.
  • Trustworthiness of Background Information: Our background information is generally trustworthy, but it is not infallible.
  • Regarding Ambiguous Claims: For claims that are not clearly dubious enough to reject outright but not worthy of full acceptance, we should suspend our belief to the evidence at hand.

Expertise and Claims

  • Lack of Reasonable Belief: It’s not reasonable to believe a claim when there is no solid evidence or justification for doing so.
  • Consensus Among Experts: When a claim runs counter to a consensus among experts, this principle holds: If a claim conflicts with expert opinion, we have good reason to question it.
  • Validity of Experts: If they really are more likely to be accurate than nonexperts about claims in their field, then any claim that conflicts with expert opinion is, at least initially, dubious.
  • Disputed Claims: When the experts disagree about a claim, we have good reason to be cautious about it.
  • Criteria for Dispute: A claim is considered in dispute among experts when substantial numbers of experts disagree with one another—but not when a mere minority of dissidents disagree with almost all others.

Fallacious Appeal to Authority

  • Explanation of the Fallacy: The fallacious appeal to authority occurs when a claim is accepted as true simply because an expert endorses it, without any critical evaluation of the evidence or reasoning behind the claim.

Judging Experts

  • Criteria for Expertise: To be considered an expert, someone must have shown that he or she has the knowledge, judgment, and competence required in a particular field.
  • Indicators of Expertise: Indicators that someone has this essential kind of expertise include:
    1. Relevant Education: A degree or formal training in the relevant field.
    2. Practical Experience: Extensive work experience in the specific area of expertise.
  • Limitations of Credentials: Unfortunately, people can have the requisite education and experience and still not know what they’re talking about in the field in question.
  • More Reliable Indicators: Two additional indicators that are more revealing:
    1. Publications: Being published in reputable journals or books on the subject.
    2. Peer Recognition: Receiving awards or recognition from peers in the field.

Reasons to Doubt Experts

  • Critical Thinking Violations: Many reasons to doubt the opinion of experts include blatant violations of critical thinking principles discussed in the text. Common tip-offs of dubious authority include:
    1. Lack of Transparency: Not disclosing sources of funding or bias.
    2. Overconfidence: Displaying excessive certainty in claims that are still research topics.
    3. Disregard for Evidence: Ignoring conflicting evidence or consensus data in the field.