, 25:297 | Cite as

Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry

  • Axel Gelfert


This paper argues that the problem of expertise calls for a rapprochement between social epistemology and argumentation theory. Social epistemology has tended to emphasise the role of expert testimony, neglecting the argumentative function of appeals to expert opinion by non-experts. The first half of the paper discusses parallels and contrasts between the two cases of direct expert testimony and appeals to expert opinion by our epistemic peers, respectively. Importantly, appeals to expert opinion need to be advertised as such, if they are to sway an epistemic peer. The second half of the paper sketches a theoretical framework for thinking about assessments of expertise in a unified way, via a ‘default and challenge’ model that emphasises the need for a version of conversational scorekeeping. It is through such scorekeeping that interlocutors can track and coordinate their differences in epistemic outlook. The paper concludes with a genealogical perspective on the function of (attributions of) expertise: acceptance of another’s appeal to expert opinion may be construed as tacit agreement that inquiry, for now, has been taken far enough.


Expertise Testimony Expert opinion Social epistemology Default-and-challenge model 



I am grateful to Boaz Miller and the participants of the March 2011 workshop ‘Epistemic Practices: Knowing through Testimony’, held at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Edinburgh, for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.


  1. Adler, J. 2010. Epistemological problems of testimony. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta (Winter 2010 Edition). Accessed 20 Feb 2011.
  2. Brandom, R.B. 1994. Making it explicit: Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Coady, C.A.J. 1992. Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gelfert, A. 2010. Reconsidering the role of inference to the best explanation in the epistemology of testimony. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41: 386–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gelfert, A. 2011. Steps to an ecology of knowledge: continuity and change in the genealogy of knowledge. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 8: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldberg, S. 2010. Relying on others: An essay in epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Goldman, A. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goldman, A. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goodwin, J. 2010. Trust in experts as a principal-agent problem. In Dialectics, dialogue, and argumentation, ed. Chris Reed and Christopher W. Tindale, 133–143. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Hardwig, J. 1985. Epistemic dependence. The Journal of Philosophy 82: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hardwig, J. 1991. The role of trust in knowledge. The Journal of Philosophy 88: 693–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hume, D. 1748. An enquiry concerning human understanding, ed. by T. L. Beauchamp, 2000. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kappel, K. 2010. On saying that someone knows: themes from Craig. In Social epistemology, ed. A. Haddock, A. Millar, and D. Pritchard, 69–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kauffeld, F.J., and J.E. Fields. 2003. The presumption of veracity in testimony and gossip. Proceedings of the 2003 OSSA Conference. Windsor: University of Windsor. Accessed 20 Feb 2011.
  15. Kibble, R. 2004. Elements of a social semantics for argumentative dialogue. In Working notes of the 4th workshop on computational models of natural argument (CMNA 2004), ed. F. Grasso, C. Reed, and G. Carenini, 25–28. Valencia: Universidad Politecnica.Google Scholar
  16. Kitcher, P. 1994. Contrasting conceptions of social epistemology. In Socializing epistemology: The social dimensions of knowledge, ed. F.F. Schmitt, 111–134. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  17. Kusch, M. 2002. Knowledge by agreement: The programme of communitarian epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8: 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matheson, D. 2005. Conflicting experts and dialectical performance: Adjudication heuristics for the layperson. Argumentation 19: 145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Olmos, P. 2008. Situated practices of testimony: A rhetorical approach. Theoria 61: 57–68.Google Scholar
  21. Scharp, K.A. 2005. Scorekeeping in a defective language game. Pragmatics & Cognition 13: 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Scholz, O.R. 2009. Experts: what they are and how we recognize them—A discussion of Alvin Goldman’s views. Grazer Philosophische Studien 79: 187–205.Google Scholar
  23. Strevens, M. 2010. In Oxford studies in epistemology, ed. T. Szabó Gendler and J. Hawthorne, Vol. 3, 294–330. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Wagemans, J. 2011. The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion. Argumentation. doi: 10.1007/s10503-011-9225-8.
  25. Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Walton, D. 2008. Witness testimony evidence: Argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Williams, B. 2002. Truth and truthfulness: An essay in genealogy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations