Experts and Bias: When is the Interest-Based Objection to Expert Argumentation Sound?
- 361 Downloads
I discuss under what conditions the objection that an expert’s argument is biased by her self-interest can be a meaningful and sound argumentative move. I suggest replacing the idea of bias qua self-interest by that of a conflict of interests, exploit the distinction between an expert context and a public context, and hold that the objection can be meaningful. Yet, the evaluation is overall negative, because the motivational role of self-interest for human behavior remains unclear. Moreover, if recent social-psychological results from the “heuristics and biases” program are accepted, it is plausible to assume that humans also satisfice (rather than optimize/maximize) when identifying and then acting in their self-interest. My thesis is: insofar as the objection is sound with a particular audience, it is not needed; and insofar as the objection is needed, it is unsound.
KeywordsCircumstantial ad hominem Ad verecundiam Personal attack Argument from expert opinion Expertise Context Bias Heuristics Conflict of interest
I wish to thank the editors of this special issue as well two anonymous reviewers for comments that helped to improve this paper, which was completed during my term as an Erik Allard Fellow at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies.
- CERACT 2008. Committee on education, research and appraisal of the consequences of technology, March 3rd, 2008. Verbatim Protocol 16/53, German Bundestag. http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21.web/searchDocuments/simple_search.do. Accessed 10 June 2011.
- Gigerenzer, G. 2008. Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, J. 2010. 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. C. Tindale and C. Reed, 133–143. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
- Goodwin, J., and L. Honeycutt. 2010. When science goes public: From technical arguments to appeals to authority. Studies in Communication Sciences 9(2): 19–30.Google Scholar
- Hahn, U., A.J.L. Harris, and A. Corner. 2009. Argument content and argument source: An exploration. Informal Logic 29(4): 337–367.Google Scholar
- Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar
- Lo, B., and M.J. Field, eds. 2009. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and Practice. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Locke, J. 1975 (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Mansbridge, J.J. 1990. Preface. In Beyond self-interest, ed. J.J. Mansbridge, ix–xiii. Chicago, ILL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
- Mosley, A. 2005. Egoism. In The internet encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. J. Fieser and B. Dowden. http://www.iep.utm.edu/egoism/. Accessed 10 June 2011.
- Patterson, M.R. 1999. Conflicts of interest in scientific expert testimony. William and Mary Law Review 40(4): 1303–1394.Google Scholar
- Pollock, J.L. 1995. Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Rand, A. 1964. Virtue of selfishness. New York: Signet.Google Scholar
- Rehg, W. 2009. Cogent science in context. The science wars, argumentation theory and Habermas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Schopler, J., and C.A. Insko. 1992. The discontinuity effect in interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. In European review of social psychology, vol. 3, ed. W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone, 121–151. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Sen, A.K. 1977. Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6: 317–344.Google Scholar
- Šorm, E. 2010. The good, the bad and the persuasive: Normative quality and actual persuasiveness of arguments from authority, arguments from cause to effect and arguments from example. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series., vol. 241.Google Scholar
- Tocqueville, A. de. 1889. Democracy in America. London: Longman, Greens & Co.Google Scholar
- van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 1999. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrance Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Walton, D.N. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
- Walton, D.N. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
- Walton, D.N. 2011. Arguments, types of. In: Internet encyclopedia. http://science.jrank.org/pages/20958/arguments-types.html. Accessed 10 June 2011.
- Walton, D., and C. Reed. 2003. Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. In Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ch. 16, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoek Henkemans. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1974. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Philosophy and Rhetoric 7: 135–153.Google Scholar
- Zenker, F. 2010. Analyzing social policy argumentation: A case study on the opinion of the German National Ethics Council on an amendment of the Stem Cell Law. Informal Logic 30(1): 62–91.Google Scholar
- Zenker, F. 2011. Deduction, induction, conduction: An attempt at unifying natural language argument structure. In Contributions to a Symposium on Conductive Argument, April 2010, University of Windsor, ON, ed. J.A. Blair and R. Johnson. London, UK: College Press (forthcoming).Google Scholar