Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts
- 880 Downloads
Work in Argumentation Studies (AS) and Studies in Expertise and Experience (SEE) has been proceeding on converging trajectories, moving from resistance to expert authority to a cautious acceptance of its legitimacy. The two projects are therefore also converging on the need to account for how, in the course of complex and confused civic deliberations, nonexpert citizens can figure out which statements from purported experts deserve their trust. Both projects recognize that nonexperts cannot assess expertise directly; instead, the nonexpert must judge whether to trust the expert. But how is this social judgment accomplished? A normative pragmatic approach from AS can complement and extend the work from SEE on this question, showing that the expert’s putting forward of his view and “bonding” it with his reputation for expertise works to force or “blackmail” his audience of citizens into heeding what he says. Appeals to authority thus produce the visibility and accountability we want for expert views in civic deliberations.
KeywordsArgumentation Expertise Authority Appeal to authority Deliberation Normative pragmatics
This work was made possible with the support of a summer stipend from the National Endowment for the Humanities (# FT5812610).
- Ceccarelli, L. 2011. Manufactured scientific controversy: Science, rhetoric, and public debate. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 14: 195–228.Google Scholar
- Colingridge, D., and C. Reeve. 1986. Science speaks to power: The role of experts in policy making. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
- Collins, H., and R. Evans. 2007. Rethinking expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Collins, H., and T. Pinch. 1998. The golem: What you should know about science, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Fischer, F. 2009. Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Goodnight, G.Th. 1982. The personal, technical and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 214–227.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, J. 2000. Comments on [Jacobs’] “Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics.” Argumentation 14: 287–292.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, J. 2007. Argument has no function. Informal Logic 27: 69–90.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, J. 2009. The authority of the IPCC first assessment report and the manufacture of consensus. Presented at the National Communication Association convention, Chicago, IL; http://goodwin.public.iastate.edu/pubs/goodwinIPCC.pdf.
- Goodwin, J. 2010a. The authority of Wikipedia. In Argument cultures, ed. Juko Ritola. Windsor, ONT: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
- Goodwin, J. 2010b. Trust in experts as a principal-agent problem. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument, ed. Chris Reed and Christopher W. Tindale, 133–143. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, J., and M.F. Dahlstrom, 2011. Good reasons for trusting climate science communication. Presented at the American Meteorological Society convention, Seattle, WA; http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Paper184847.html.
- Govier, T. 2010. Conductive arguments and counter considerations. In A practical study of argument, 352–375. Belmont CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
- Innocenti, B. Forthcoming. A normative pragmatic model of making fear appeals. Philosophy and Rhetoric.Google Scholar
- Jackson, S. 2008. Predicaments of politicization in the debate over abstinence-only sex education. In Controversy, confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. F.H.v. Eemeren and B. Garssen, 215–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
- Johnson, R.H., and J.A. Blair. 1994. Logical self-defense. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Kauffeld, F.J. 2002. Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argumentation. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H.v. Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 97–118. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Kauffeld, F.J. 2009. What are we learning about the arguers’ probative obligations. In Concerning argument, ed. Scott Jacobs, 1–31. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
- Kutrovátz, G. 2010. Trust in experts: Contextual patterns of warranted epistemic dependence. Balkan Journal of Philosophy 2: 57–68.Google Scholar
- Locke, J. 1975 . An essay concerning human understanding. ed. P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
- Tindale, Ch.W. 1999. The authority of testimony. Protosociology 13: 96–116.Google Scholar
- Walton, D. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
- Willard, C.A. 1996. Liberalism and the problem of knowledge: A new rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1974. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Philosophy and Rhetoric 7: 135–153.Google Scholar