Experts in science: a view from the trenches
- 400 Downloads
In this paper I analyze four so-called “principles of expertise”; that is, good epistemic practices that are normatively motivated by the epistemological literature on expert judgment. I highlight some of the problems that the four principles of expertise run into, when we try to implement them in concrete contexts of application (e.g. in science committees). I suggest some possible alternatives and adjustments to the principles, arguing in general that the epistemology of expertise should be informed both by case studies and by the literature on the use of experts in science practice.
KeywordsEpistemology of expertise Experts Principles of expertise Social epistemology Science practice
- Armstrong, J. S. (Ed.). (2001a). Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Armstrong, J. S. (2001b). Combining forecasts. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Bank of England. (2007). Treasury Committee inquiry into the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England: Ten years on. The Stationery Office. Retrieved 17 April 2010, from http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/other/treasurycommittee/mpc/tsc070219.pdf.
- Bank of England. (2012). Minutes of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. Accessed April 31, 2012, from http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/minutes/Pages/mpc/default.aspx.
- Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Clemen, R. T., & Winkler, R. L. (1999). Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 19(2), 187–203.Google Scholar
- Cooke, R. M. (1991). Experts in uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Cooke, R. M., & Probst, K. N. (2006). Highlights of the expert judgment policy symposium and technical workshop. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- Dalkey, N., Rourke, D. L., Lewis, R., & Snyder, D. (1972). Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and decision-making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
- Faust, D. (1984). The limits of scientific reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
- Helmer, O., & Rescher, N. (1959). On the epistemology of the inexact sciences. Management Science (pre-1986), 6(1), 25–52.Google Scholar
- Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., et al. (Eds.). (2001). Climate change 2001: The scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hume, D. (2007). . An enquiry concerning human understanding. And other writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Hume, D. (2011). [1739–1740]. A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Kousky, C., & Cooke, R. M. (1991). The unholy trinity: Fat tails, tail dependence, and micro-correlations. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper. September, 09-36.Google Scholar
- Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bosch, P. R., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. A. (Eds.). (2007). Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Accessed February 14, 2012, from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html.
- Nature (editorial article). (2008, October 16). More than one bad apple (Vol. 455, N. 7215).Google Scholar
- Pachauri, R. K., & Reisinger, A. (2007).Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC.Google Scholar
- Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Randall, D. A., Wood, R. A., Bony, S., Colman, R., Fichefet, T., Fyfe, J., et al. (2007). The physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Reiss, J. (2008). Error in economics: Towards a more evidence-based methodology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., et al. (Eds.). (2007). Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- Trout, J. D. (2009). The empathy gap. New York: Viking/Penguin.Google Scholar
- Yaniv, I. (1997). Weighting and trimming: Heuristics for aggregating judgments under uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(3), 237–249.Google Scholar