Character and Knowledge: Learning from the Speech of Experts

Abstract

This paper discusses the ways in which a person's character (ethos) and a hearer's emotional response (pathos) are part of the complex judgments made about experts' claims, along with an actual assessment of those claims (logos). The analysis is rooted in the work of Aristotle, but expands to consider work on emotion and cognition conducted by Thagard and Gigerenzer. It also draws on some conclusions of the general epistemology of testimony (of which expert testimony is a special subset), where it is argued that we learn not just from the transmission of another's beliefs, but from the words they speak. This shifts the onus in testimony away from the intentions of a speaker onto the judgments of an audience, capturing better its social character and reflecting our experience of receiving testimony. I conclude, however, that accepting the arguments of experts involves much more than simply believing what they say.

The Legitimacy of Pseudo‐Expert Discourse in the Public Sphere

“…As Walton puts it, “An expert in a particular domain of knowledge is in a special position to know about propositions in that domain, and therefore the expert's opinion on some propositions of this kind generally has weight of presumption in its favour” (, 64). That weight can be ascertained through a series of relevant questions about the relation of the expert to the domain, the viability of the domain involved, and other circumstantial features that may undermine the expert's assertions (Tindale , 342).…”

“…Despite the disagreement about what constitutes expertise, there is some agreement in the literature that audiences often uncritically accept the views of experts and rely on them to form their beliefs (Tindale , 342; Goodwin ). Audiences do this for a variety of reasons.…”

“…Moreover, there is no evidence that deliberating these views in the public sphere will necessarily counter the negative effects of pseudo‐expert speech. For example, despite the fact that the Wakefield study was thoroughly discredited on account of evidence of fraud and self‐interest, and despite the failure of other researchers to corroborate original findings, Wakefield continues to receive considerable support from autism groups and anti‐vaccine groups (Tindale , 343). Tindale explains the complex reasons for this.…”

“…Tindale explains the complex reasons for this. He suggests that audience members’ experience of expert communication has three different features: their listening to what the expert says (or is reported as saying); their emotional response to the expert and their trust of him; and “their understanding of what is said in relation to other things they know or believe which provide corroboration” (Tindale , 351). This partly explains why many people continued to believe the Wakefield study, even though the evidence did not support Wakefield's claims.…”

The Authority of Citations and Quotations in Academic Papers

“…In scholarly contexts, it is clearly the latter that should be involved, but as Tindale (2011) states, the distinction is far from clear because the authority of experts in a field is associated with their previous performance, knowledge, and track record, and this entails experts exhibiting "authority" not only on the basis of their actual work, but also because of their academic status. Walton (1997) proposes that authority of the cognitive kind should be used in a fairly weak sense, as a challengeable source and open to critical questioning, but "one that is given a certain standing or weight of presumption where direct access to knowledge (or "the facts") is not available within the practical constraints of arriving at a prudent conclusion on how to proceed in argumentation" (p. 85).…”