Argumentation

, 25:355 | Cite as

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

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Circumstantial ad hominem Ad verecundiam Personal attack Argument from expert opinion Expertise Context Bias Heuristics Conflict of interest 

References

  1. Cain, D., G. Loewenstein, and D.A. Moore. 2005. The dirt on coming clean: Perverse effects of disclosing conflicts of interest. Journal of Legal Studies 34: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.
  3. Gigerenzer, G. 2008. Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gigerenzer, G., and H. Brighton. 2009. Homo heuristicus: Why biased minds make better inferences. Topics in Cognitive Science 1: 107–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Godden, D.M., and D. Walton. 2006. Argument from expert opinion as legal evidence: Critical questions and admissibility criteria of expert testimony in the American legal system. Ratio Juris 19(3): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Goldman, A.I. 1999. Knowledge in a social world. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Habermas, J. 2005. Knowledge and human interests: A general perspective. In Continental philosophy of science, ed. G. Gutting, 310–349. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hahn, U., and M. Oaskford. 2006. A Bayesian approach to informal reasoning fallacies. Synthese 152: 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London, UK: Methuen.Google Scholar
  13. Hornikx, J. 2008. Comparing the actual and expected persuasiveness of evidence types: How good are lay people at selecting persuasive evidence? Argumentation 22: 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koch, C., and C. Schmidt. 2010. Disclosing conflicts of interest—Do experience and reputation matter? Accounting, Organizations and Society 35: 95–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li, M., and K. Madarás. 2008. When mandatory disclosure hurts: Expert advice and conflicting interests. Journal of Economic Theory 139(1): 47–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Locke, J. 1975 (1690). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mansbridge, J.J. 1990. Preface. In Beyond self-interest, ed. J.J. Mansbridge, ix–xiii. Chicago, ILL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Mercier, H., and D. Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, D.T. 2001. The norm of self-interest. In The next phase of business ethics: Integrating psychology and ethics, vol. 3, ed. J. Dienhart, D. Moberg, and R. Duska, 193–210. Bingley: Emerald Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.
  22. Oaksford, M., and N. Charter. 2009. Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 69–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Patterson, M.R. 1999. Conflicts of interest in scientific expert testimony. William and Mary Law Review 40(4): 1303–1394.Google Scholar
  24. Pollock, J.L. 1995. Cognitive carpentry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rand, A. 1964. Virtue of selfishness. New York: Signet.Google Scholar
  26. Rehg, W. 2009. Cogent science in context. The science wars, argumentation theory and Habermas. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Sen, A.K. 1977. Rational fools: A critique of the behavioral foundations of economic theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6: 317–344.Google Scholar
  29. Simon, H.A. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychological Review 63(2): 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simon, H.A. 1985. The dialogue of psychology with political science. The American Political Science Review 79(2): 293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Tocqueville, A. de. 1889. Democracy in America. London: Longman, Greens & Co.Google Scholar
  33. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans. 1999. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrance Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. Walton, D.N. 1997. Appeal to expert opinion: Arguments from authority. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Walton, D.N. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Walton, D.N. 2011. Arguments, types of. In: Internet encyclopedia. http://science.jrank.org/pages/20958/arguments-types.html. Accessed 10 June 2011.
  38. 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
  39. Woods, J., and D. Walton. 1974. Argumentum ad verecundiam. Philosophy and Rhetoric 7: 135–153.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Cognitive ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Helsinki Collegium for Advanced StudiesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations