Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Experts in science: a view from the trenches

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    At least if we assume a minimal requirement for justification. Of course, there are many notions of epistemic justification, but what I am considering here is a minimal requirement for a belief to be justified.

  2. 2.

    To be fair, Goldman provides a number of important qualifications to the principle of large numbers (see Goldman 2001, Sect. 4); that discussion is left aside in this paper, because I wish to focus on different and less explored issues related to the principle discussed here.

  3. 3.

    See, for example, the definition of ‘climate model’ in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (see Metz et al. 2007, Glossary A–D).

  4. 4.

    Self-interest biases can also be cognitive biases, when the interest-seeking is not conscious, and yet the bias still favors one’s interests. In this section, with ‘self-interest bias’ I have in mind the more specific case where an agent consciously chooses to serve one’s personal interest.

  5. 5.

    This is a version of the old problem of induction (Hume 1739–1740). But whereas Hume’s problem of induction, generalized to all events, normally does not hinder practical applications of science, in the cases analyzed in this section the lack of a frame of reference on which experts can be calibrated is a serious problem for the reliability of their predictions, and therefore the use of those predictions.

References

  1. Armstrong, J. S. (Ed.). (2001a). Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

  2. Armstrong, J. S. (2001b). Combining forecasts. In J. S. Armstrong (Ed.), Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

  3. Aspinall, W. (2010). A route to more tractable expert advice. Nature, 463, 21.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  7. Bishop, M., & Trout, J. D. (2005). Epistemology and the psychology of human judgment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  8. Clemen, R. T. (1989). Combining forecasts: A review and annotated bibliography. International Journal of Forecasting, 5, 559–583.

  9. Clemen, R. T., & Winkler, R. L. (1999). Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 19(2), 187–203.

  10. Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  11. Cooke, R. M. (1991). Experts in uncertainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  12. Cooke, R. M., & Probst, K. N. (2006). Highlights of the expert judgment policy symposium and technical workshop. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

  13. Dalkey, N. (1969). An experimental study of group opinion: The Delphi method. Futures, 1(5), 408–426.

  14. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.

  15. Dalkey, N., Rourke, D. L., Lewis, R., & Snyder, D. (1972). Studies in the quality of life: Delphi and decision-making. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

  16. Delbecq, A., & Van de Ven, A. (1971). A group process model for problem identification and program planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 466–492.

  17. Faust, D. (1984). The limits of scientific reasoning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  18. Goldman, A. (2001). Experts: Which ones should we trust. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 85–110.

  19. Helmer, O., & Rescher, N. (1959). On the epistemology of the inexact sciences. Management Science (pre-1986), 6(1), 25–52.

  20. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389.

  21. 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.

  22. Hume, D. (2007). [1748]. An enquiry concerning human understanding. And other writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  23. Hume, D. (2011). [1739–1740]. A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  24. James, W. H. (1995). Fraud and hoaxes in science. Nature, 377, 474.

  25. Kitcher, P. (2010). The climate change debates. Science, 328, 1230–1234.

  26. 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.

  27. Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1981). Rational consensus in science and society. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  28. Lomborg, B. (2001). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  29. 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.

  30. Nature (editorial article). (2008, October 16). More than one bad apple (Vol. 455, N. 7215).

  31. 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.

  32. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  33. 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.

  34. Reiss, J. (2008). Error in economics: Towards a more evidence-based methodology. New York: Routledge.

  35. 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.

  36. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.

  37. Trout, J. D. (2009). The empathy gap. New York: Viking/Penguin.

  38. Walton, N. D. (1989). Reasoned use of expertise in argumentation. Argumentation, 3, 59–73.

  39. Yaniv, I. (1997). Weighting and trimming: Heuristics for aggregating judgments under uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(3), 237–249.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Carlo Martini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martini, C. Experts in science: a view from the trenches. Synthese 191, 3–15 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-013-0321-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Epistemology of expertise
  • Experts
  • Principles of expertise
  • Social epistemology
  • Science practice