An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence

Abstract

Tribunals have come to depend increasingly on expertise for determining the facts in cases. However, current legal methods have proved problematic to work with. This paper argues that, as a special model of public understanding of science, assessing expertise should consider source credibility of expertise from internal aspects, including scientific validity and reliability, and external aspects involving the credibility of experts. Using the Carneades Argumentation System we show that the internal and the external aspects are mediated by the structure of the argument from expert opinion with its matching set of critical questions.

Effectiveness of Leadership Decision-Making in Complex Systems

“…This applies to high-level managers as much as it does to anybody else. The use of the popular Delphi technique across a range of domains [93,94] is an example of the usefulness of taking expert opinion, as is the increasing reliance upon expert evidence in legal matters [13].…”

“…Researchers have also focused upon behavioral approaches to leadership: what leaders should actually do [10,11]. Leadership contingency theories [12,13] explored the need for different behaviors under different circumstances.…”

In what way are you qualified? Understanding epistemic (in)competence and expert persuasion through the courtroom of My Cousin Vinny

“…A normative approach differs to 'operative mechanics' by starting from first principles and defining what is logically required for an expert opinion to warrant belief. In addressing this issue, Walton (1997;Walton & Zhang, 2016) suggested six attributes relevant to competent assessments of expert opinion quality. These were: expertise, field, opinion, trustworthiness, consistency and evidence.…”

“…Ability of the expert is determined by their track record and their ability to form accurate and reliable opinions (aka validity as applied per PCAST, 2016;Martire & Edmond, 2016;NRC, 2009). The opinion of the expert relates to the substantive judgment or opinion they are providing, its clarity, and the acknowledgement of any limitations (NRC, 2009;Walton, 1997;Walton & Zhang, 2016). Support examines the presence and quality of the basis for an opinion, and may include the observations, test results and reasoning that underpin the experts' position (Walton, 1997;Walton & Zhang, 2016).…”

Uma década de audiências públicas no Supremo Tribunal Federal (2007-2017)

“…Pode ser ainda um indicador de que a audiência pública não é utilizada pelo ministro como fonte de obtenção de informação técnico -especializada a respeito do tema em questão, funcionando como um instituto retórico, meramente formal. Nesse caso, poderíamos questionar o uso legítimo do argumento de autoridade, especialmente quando ele não apresenta nenhuma outra fonte de dados ou quando a sua fonte é inconsistente com o que a maioria dos especialistas na área afirma 60 . Ou, talvez, o ministro tenha sido tão diligente em seu voto que não só utilizou as informações apresentadas na audiência pública, como foi além.…”