Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:18:13.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preemptive Authority: The Challenge From Outrageous Expert Judgments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2021

Thomas Grundmann Open the ORCID record for Thomas Grundmann [Opens in a new window]
Thomas Grundmann*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Cologne, Albertus Magnus Platz, 50923Köln, Germany
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Typically, expert judgments are regarded by laypeople as highly trustworthy. However, expert assertions that strike the layperson as obviously false or outrageous, seem to give one a perfect reason to dispute that this judgment manifests expertise. In this paper, I will defend four claims. First, I will deliver an argument in support of the preemption view on expert judgments according to which we should not rationally use our own domain-specific reasons in the face of expert testimony. Second, I will argue that the preemption view does not leave room for rejecting an expert judgment simply because it is outrageous. Third and finally, I will argue that outrageous expert judgments are ambiguous. Whereas some of them should be rationally rejected by laypeople, others are true and rationally acceptable. So, being outrageous is not, in and of itself, a reason to reject the judgment. Finally, I will argue that there are resources available to the preemption view that enable the layperson to reject some but not all outrageous expert judgments. This is sufficient to overcome the challenge from outrageous expert judgments to the preemption view.

Keywords

Expertepistemic authoritypreemptionundercutting defeatsocial evidence
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 18 , Special Issue 3: Episteme Conference Special Issue , September 2021 , pp. 407 - 427
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alter, A.L., Oppenheimer, D.M. and Epley, N. (2007). ‘Overcoming Intuition: Metacognitive Difficulty Activates Analytic Reasoning.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 569–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boghossian, P. (2003). ‘Blind Reasoning.’ The Aristotelian Society: Suppl. 77, 225–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, L. (1998). In Defense of Pure Reason. A Rationalist Account of A Priori Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruns, B. and Wieth, M. (2004). ‘The Collider Principle in Causal Reasoning: Why the Monty Hall Dilemma is so Hard.’ Journal of Experiential Psychology: General 133, 436–49.Google Scholar
Casullo, A. (2003). A Priori Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, D. (2007). ‘Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News.’ Philosophical Review 116, 187–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantin, J. and Grundmann, T. (2020). ‘Epistemic Authority: Preemption Through Source Sensitive Defeat.’ Synthese 197, 4109–30. doi:10.1007/s11229-018-01923-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croce, M. (2019). ‘On What it Takes to Be an Expert.’ Philosophical Quarterly 69, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, D. and Reagan, B. (2006). Debunking 9/11 Myths. Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. New York, NY: Hearst Books.Google Scholar
Dunning, D. (2005). Self-Insight. Roadblocks and Detours on the Path to Knowing Thyself. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Elga, A. (2007). ‘Reflection and Disagreement.’ Noûs 41, 478–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, E. (2006). ‘Testimony and Epistemic Authority.’ In Lackey, J. and Sosa, E. (eds), The Epistemology of Testimony, pp. 225–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, S. (2010). Relying on Others. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. (2001). ‘Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63, 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, A. (2018). ‘Expertise.’ Topoi 37, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hookway, C. (2003). ‘Affective States and Epistemic Immediacy.’ Metaphilosophy 34, 78–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, C. (2016). ‘Epistemic Authority, Preemptive Reasons and Understanding.’ Episteme 13, 167–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, T. (2013). ‘Evidence Can be Permissive.’ In Steup, M. and Turri, J. (eds), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, pp. 298–312. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keren, A. (2007). ‘Epistemic Authority, Testimony and the Transmission of Knowledge.’ Episteme 4, 368–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (2000). ‘A Priori Knowledge Revisited.’ In Boghossian, P. and Peacocke, C. (eds), New Essays on the A Priori, pp. 65–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, J. and Dunning, D. (1999). ‘Unskilled and Unaware of it.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77, 1121–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lackey, J. (2018). ‘Experts and Peer Disagreement.’ In Benton, M., Hawthorne, J. and Rabinowitz, D. (eds), Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, pp. 228–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic Reason. Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, N. (2017). ‘Nudges in a Post-Truth World.’ Journal of Medical Ethics 43, 495–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. (2016). The Internet of Us: Knowing More and Understanding Less in the Age of Big Data. New York, NY: WW Norton.Google Scholar
McCauley, R.M. (2011). Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1988). The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenhouse, J. (2009). The Monty Hall Problem. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. (2017). Judgment and Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stichter, M. (2015). ‘Philosophical and Psychological Accounts of Expertise and Experts.’ Humana Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies 28, 105–28.Google Scholar
Thompson, V.A., Prowse Turner, J.A. and Pennycook, G. (2011). ‘Intuition, Reason, and Metacognition’. Cognitive Psychology 63, 107–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williamson, T. (2007). Philosophy of Philosophy. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagzebski, L. (2012). Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar