Experts: Which ones should you trust? (Epistemic considerations)
Experts: Which ones should you trust? (Epistemic considerations)
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x
复制
发表时间：
2001-07-01
影响因子：
1.5
通讯作者：
Goldman, AI
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Goldman, AI
1.主流认识论是一种高度理论化和抽象化的研究。传统的认识论者很少把他们的思考作为对生活实际问题的关键，除非有人假设--比如休谟就没有假设--怀疑论的担忧会在我们的日常事务中困扰我们。但是，认识论中的一些问题在理论上是有趣的，在实践中也是相当紧迫的。这就是这里要讨论的问题：外行人应该如何评估专家的证词，并决定两个或两个以上的竞争专家中哪一个最可信。它具有实际的重要性，因为在一个复杂的、高度专业化的世界里，人们经常面临这样的情况：作为相对的新手（甚至是业余爱好者），他们必须向公认的专家寻求智力指导或帮助。它具有理论上的意义，因为适当的认识论考虑远非透明的;而且不清楚这些问题在多大程度上导致了不可克服的怀疑论困境。本文并不主张在这一领域采取直截了当的怀疑主义;另一方面，它也不打算消除所有朝着怀疑主义方向发展的压力。这是一篇探索性的论文，试图找出问题并探讨一些可能的解决方案，而不是确定这些解决方案，本论题在另一个方面也背离了传统的认识论和科学哲学。这些领域通常考虑在”理想”情况下获取知识的前景。例如，认知代理人经常检查谁拥有无限的逻辑能力，并没有显着的限制，他们的调查资源。相比之下，在当前的问题中，我们关注具有规定认识约束的代理人，并询问他们在受到这些约束时可能会获得什么。专家评估问题虽然在某些方面是非传统的，但它绝不是一个新问题。柏拉图在他早期的一些对话中，特别是在《沙尔米得斯》中，直截了当地阐述和解决了这个问题。在这段对话中，苏格拉底问一个人是否能够审视另一个人。
1. Expertise and Testimony Mainstream epistemology is a highly theoretical and abstract enterprise. Traditional epistemologists rarely present their deliberations as critical to the practical problems of life, unless one supposes-as Hume, for example, did not-that skeptical worries should trouble us in our everyday affairs. But some issues in epistemology are both theoretically interesting and practically quite pressing. That holds of the problem to be discussed here: how laypersons should evaluate the testimony of experts and decide which of two or more rival experts is most credible. It is of practical importance because in a complex, highly specialized world people are constantly confronted with situations in which, as comparative novices (or even ignoramuses), they must turn to putative experts for intellectual guidance or assistance. It is of theoret-ical interest because the appropriate epistemic considerations are far from transparent; and it is not clear how far the problems lead to insurmountable skeptical quandaries. This paper does not argue for flat-out skepticism in this domain; nor, on the other hand, does it purport to resolve all pressures in the direction of skepticism. It is an exploratory paper, which tries to identify problems and examine some possible solutions, not to establish those solu-tions definitively.The present topic departs from traditional epistemology and philosophy of science in another respect as well. These fields typically consider the prospects for knowledge acquisition in" ideal" situations. For example, epistemic agents are often examined who have unlimited logical competence and no significant limits on their investigational resources. In the present problem, by contrast, we focus on agents with stipulated epistemic constraints and ask what they might attain while subject to those constraints. Although the problem of assessing experts is non-traditional in some respects, it is by no means a new problem. It was squarely formulated and addressed by Plato in some of his early dialogues, especially the Charmides. In this dialogue Socrates asks whether a man is able to examine another man