Experts and Bias: When is the Interest-Based Objection to Expert Argumentation Sound?
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
- 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