Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?¶
Goldman. (2001). Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Ad Populum (Appeal to the People)
- The structural defect is the substitution of majority assent or audience sentiment for evidence bearing on the claim's truth: the popularity of a belief and the truth of the belief are logically independent, even when they feel fused, because the believers' belief is itself evidence only if they arrived at it by independently evaluating the same underlying evidence
This sourceArgues that agreeing opinions add evidential weight only when independently formed rather than inherited from a common source.
- The structural defect is the substitution of majority assent or audience sentiment for evidence bearing on the claim's truth: the popularity of a belief and the truth of the belief are logically independent, even when they feel fused, because the believers' belief is itself evidence only if they arrived at it by independently evaluating the same underlying evidence
- Ad Verecundiam (Appeal to Authority)
- The conditions that render testimonial reliance legitimate are relatively settled in the epistemology-of-expertise literature
This sourceFrames the novice/2-expert problem as open rather than solved, and gives five SOURCES OF EVIDENCE a novice may use to adjudicate between competing experts - not a settled checklist of legitimacy conditions. The nearest actual work by one of the three named authors: it supplies five sources of evidence for adjudicating between competing experts, which is a different list doing a different job from the checklist the article attributes to it.
- The conditions that render testimonial reliance legitimate are relatively settled in the epistemology-of-expertise literature
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This work's DOI is recorded above but has not been resolved against an external catalogue, so nothing here confirms the work exists.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 2 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:491a75ebe23e · see in the full table