Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:21:38.282Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Experts Disagree

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

David Coady
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Alvin Goldman has criticized the idea that, when evaluating the opinions of experts who disagree, a novice should “go by the numbers”. Although Goldman is right that this is often a bad idea, his argument involves an appeal to a principle, which I call the non-independence principle, which is not in general true. Goldman's formal argument for this principle depends on an illegitimate assumption, and the examples he uses to make it seem intuitively plausible are not convincing. The failure of this principle has significant implications, not only for the issue Goldman is directly addressing, but also for the epistemology of rumors, and for our understanding of the value of epistemic independence. I conclude by using the economics literature on information cascades to highlight an important truth which Goldman's principle gestures toward, and by mounting a qualified defense of the practice of going by the numbers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 3 , Issue 1-2 , June 2006 , pp. 68 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Lisa R., and Holt, Charles A, (1997). “Information Cascades in the Laboratory”. American Economic Review 87: 847–62.Google Scholar
Caplow, Theodore (1947). “Rumors in War”. Social Forces 25: 298–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coady, David (2006). “Rumour has it”. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20(1): 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. (2001). “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63: 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. (2002). “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?” In Goldman, Alvin I., Pathways to Knowledge: Private and Public. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, Angela, and Plott, Charles (2001). “Information Cascades: Replication and an Extension to Majority Rule and Conformity-Rewarding Institutions.” American Economic Review 91: 847–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laplace, Pierre (1951). A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, trans. Truscott, F.W. and Emory, F.E.. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keith and Wagner, Carl (1981). Rational Consensus in Science and Society: a Philosophical and Mathematical Study. Boston, MA: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John (1947). Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Surowiecki, James (2004). The Wisdom of Crowds. London: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1968). Philosophical Investigations, trans. Anscombe, G.E.M., Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar