专家：哪些是你应该信任的？

Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?

从传统认识论和科学哲学的角度来看,讨论外行(或新手)应该如何评价专家的证言,以及如何在两位或更多的相对立的专家中确定哪一位专家的证言最可信是一个迫切的现实问题。新手根据下列五类证据作出判断:(1)支持一方的观点和批评另一方观点的专家所提供的论证;(2)某一方得到了其他一般认定的专家的认同;(3)对专家们的专长的"元专家"的评价(包括由专家们获得的正式证书反映出的评价);(4)专家们关于所讨论问题的利益和偏见的证据;(5)专家们的过去"记录"的证据。关于这些问题的讨论,对"应用的"社会认识论提出了实际挑战。例如,什么类型的教育能实质性地提高新手评价专家的能力;什么类型的互动调节有助于使新手—专家关系成为比盲目信任更能得到辩护的信任之一。

From the view of traditional epistemology and philosophy of science, it is a pressing problem for us to discuss the problems of how laypersons or novices should evaluate the testimony of experts and decide which of two or more rival experts is most credible. A novice makes a judgment by the following five sources: (1) Arguments presented by the con- tending experts to support their own views and critique their rivals’ views. (2) Agreements f rom additional putative experts on one side or other of the subject in question. (3) Appraisals by 'meta-experts' of the experts (including appraisals reflected in formal credentials earned by the experts). (4) Evidence of the experts’ interests and biased vis-à-vis the question at issue. (5) Evidence of the experts’ past 'track-records'. The discussions of these questions pose interesting practical challenges for 'applied' social epistemology. What kinds of education, for example, could substantially improve the ability of novices to appraise expertise, and what kinds of communicational intermediaries might help make the novice -expert relationship more one of justified credence than blind trust.