Advertisement

Argumentation

, 25:401 | Cite as

Transmuted Expertise: How Technical Non-Experts Can Assess Experts and Expertise

  • Harry Collins
  • Martin WeinelEmail author
Article

Abstract

To become an expert in a technical domain means acquiring the tacit knowledge pertaining to the relevant domain of expertise, at least, according to the programme known as “Studies of Expertise and Experience” (SEE). We know only one way to acquire tacit knowledge and that is through some form of sustained social contact with the group that has it. Those who do not have such contact cannot acquire the expertise needed to make technical judgments. They can, however, use social expertise to judge between experts or expert claims. Where social expertise is used to make technical judgments we refer to it as “transmuted expertise”. The various kinds of transmuted expertise are described and analysed.

Keywords

Tacit knowledge Periodic table of expertises Transmuted expertise Sociological discrimination 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Rob Evans as well as the reviewers for exceptionally useful comments on this text.

References

  1. Boyce, T. 2007. Health, risk and news: The MMR vaccine and the media. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  2. Cherry, M. 2009. The president’s panel. In The virus, vitamins & vegetables: The South African HIV/AIDS mystery, ed. K. Cullinan and A. Thom, 16–35. Johannesburg: Jacana.Google Scholar
  3. Collins, H.M. 1988. Public experiments and displays of virtuosity: The core-set revisited. Social Studies of Science 18(4): 725–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins H.M. 1992[1985]. Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, H.M. 1999. Tantalus and the aliens: Publications, audiences and the search for gravitational waves. Social Studies of Science 29(2): 163–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins, H.M. 2004. Gravity’s shadow: The search for gravitational waves. Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, H.M. 2010. Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, H.M., and R.J. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, H.M., and T.J. Pinch. 1998[1993]. The golem: What everyone should know about science. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Collins, H.M., M. Weinel, and R.J. Evans. 2010. The politics and policy of the third wave: New technologies and society. Critical Policy Studies 4(2): 185–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldacre, B. 2008. Bad science. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, A. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kalichman, S. 2009. How to spot an AIDS denialist? New Humanist 124(6). http://newhumanist.org.uk/2165/how-to-spot-an-aids-denialist. Accessed 7 June 2011.
  14. Krimsky, S. 1984. Epistemic considerations on the value of folk wisdom in science and technology. Policy Studies Review 3(2): 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kutrovátz, G. 2010. Trust in experts: Contextual patterns of warranted epistemic dependence. Balkan Journal of Philosophy 2(1): 57–68.Google Scholar
  16. Mbeki, T. 1999. Address of President Mbeki, at the National Council of Provinces. http://www.info.gov.za/speeches/1999/991028409p1004.htm. Accessed 6 June 2011.
  17. Nattrass, N. 2007. Mortal combat: AIDS Denialism and the struggle for antiretrovirals in South Africa. Scottsville: University of KwaZulu Press.Google Scholar
  18. Nattrass, N. 2010. Still crazy after all those years: The challenge of AIDS denialism for science. AIDS and Behavior 14(2): 248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Robertson, H., R. Hartley, and C. Paton. 2000. Face to face with the President: Sunday times interview with President Mbeki. Sunday Times February 6.Google Scholar
  20. Scott, D., and A. Leonov. 2004. Two sides of the moon: Our story of the cold war space race. London: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  21. Selinger, E., P. Thompson, and H.M. Collins. 2011. Catastrophe ethics and activist speech: Reflections on moral norms, advocacy, and technical judgment. Metaphilosophy 42(1/2): 118–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shwed, U., and P.S. Bearman. 2010. The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. American Sociological Review 75(6): 817–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smolin, L. 2006. The trouble with physics: The rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  24. Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Weinel, M. 2008. Counterfeit scientific controversies in science policy contexts. Cardiff School of Social Sciences Working Paper, no. 120. Cardiff: Cardiff school of social sciences.Google Scholar
  26. Weinel, M. 2009. Thabo Mbeki, HIV/AIDS and bogus scientific controversies. Politicsweb 19 March. http://www.politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=121968&sn=Detail. (Accessed 6 June 2011).
  27. Weinel, M. 2011. Technological decision-making under scientific uncertainty: Preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV in South Africa. PhD Thesis. Cardiff: Cardiff School of Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Wynne, B. 1989. Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment 31(2): 10–15, 33–39.Google Scholar
  29. Wynne, B. 1992. Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science 1(3): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for the Study of Knowledge, Expertise and ScienceCardiff School of Social Sciences (KES)CardiffUK

Personalised recommendations