Assessing Expert Claims: Critical Thinking and the Appeal to Authority

Mark Battersby

1. Introduction

Much of our understanding and knowledge of the world is based on the authoritative pronouncements of experts. Both our scientific and historical understandings are grounded in this way. Think of the germ theory, astronomy, plate tectonics, ancient history, dinosaurs, the origin of humans; it does not take much reflection to see that most of our understanding of the world is, in fact, grounded on information supplied and warranted by experts. Given how much of our knowledge has this basis, one would think that epistemologists would have given detailed consideration to the issue of appeal to scientific and other intellectual authority. But appeals to authority and the role that authority plays in knowledge have received little attention in modern philosophy. Indeed, philosophers generally have been opposed to such appeals since the very birth of Western philosophy.

Greek philosophy distinguished itself from Greek theology by rejecting appeals to authority (the wisdom of the ancients or the oracle’s supply of the word of god) as the primary basis of knowledge and replacing these appeals with appeals to observation and reason as the basis of knowledge. Philosophy in many ways began with rejection of authoritative pronouncements, and when philosophy revived in the 17th century, the aversion to authority reappeared. By rejecting the authority of both the church and Aristotle, Descartes, Bacon, and Locke helped pave the way for modern science. These authors all rejected the appeal to any authority and, in doing so, marked the beginning of modern philosophy with its emphasis on individual confirmation of claims.

As a result of this history, most contemporary introductions to epistemology do not even mention the issue of appeals to experts and authority, and there is little in contemporary epistemological literature that concerns itself with this topic.^[1] But one might expect that critical thinking, with its concern with the practical needs of knowledge assessment, would devote considerably more attention to appeals to authority. In fact, most critical thinking texts do not even refer to appeals to authority and only a few texts give the subject significant treatment. Of those that do treat such appeals, many give appeals a definite secondary and necessary evil status. For example, Walton states:

generally speaking we only appeal to experts, if in fact, it may be too expensive or otherwise difficult for us to have direct evidence. That is why we may legitimately appeal to experts as a secondary source of subjective knowledge when we have to make a decision (Walton 1987, p.187).^[2]

There are at least two reasons for such neglect. One is the philosophical tradition mentioned above, but perhaps the most important reason is that appeals to authority seem to violate the spirit of critical thinking. After all, was not critical thinking meant as an antidote to students’ all-too-willing acceptance of the authoritative pronouncements of teachers and textbooks? Are we not supposed to be teaching students to question, not just accept authority? Indeed, the very Latin name for the traditional fallacy of appealing to authority, ad vercundiam, means literally the appeal to modesty or shyness. It is not implausible to interpret this as inappropriate deference.^[3] And surely it is just such deference that we as teachers of critical thinking wish to eliminate. As Locke stated in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding:

For I think, we may as rationally hope to see with other Men’s Eyes, as to know by other Men’s Understandings. So much as we ourselves consider and comprehend of Truth and Reason, so much we possess of real and true Knowledge. The floating of other Men’s Opinions in our brains makes us not one jot the more knowing, though they happen to be true. What in them was Science, in us but Opiniatrety, whilest we give up our Assent only to reverend Names, and do not as they did, employ our own Reason to understand those Truths, which gave them reputation …. In the Sciences, everyone has so much, as he really knows and comprehends: What he believes only, and takes upon trust, are but shreds: which however well in the whole piece, makes no considerable addition to his stock, who gathers them. Such borrowed Wealth, like Fairy-money, though it were Gold in the hand from which he received it, will be but Leaves and Dust when it comes to use.^[4]

Plausible as this objection is, it obviously cannot be allowed to stand. Too much of our very real knowledge is based on just such condemned sources. While only a few contemporary philosophers have noted this and attempted to outline the significance that authoritative appeals have for epistemology, Hardwig has shown that even physicists are heavily dependent on the expertise of their fellow physicists in order to develop and understand their own experiments. Hardwig points out that it is not untypical for thirty to fifty physicists to be involved in a major experiment because only with that range of expertise can the data be assembled and understood. And the final result relies for its credibility on the trust and respect that the participating physicists have for each other, since no single individual is competent to carry out more than a few of the operations involved.

Given the import of appeals to authority, it seems obvious that we should have a proper theory of such appeals. This theory should have implications for epistemology generally, and for critical thinking in particular since much of what a critical thinker must do involves assessing the claims of genuine and would-be experts. A critical but appropriate approach to authoritative appeals must replace not only deference but also the narrow model used in contemporary critical thinking texts.

To develop an analysis of appeal to authority that could be used by the teacher of critical thinking, I will first critique the typical model of proper appeal to authority used in critical thinking texts, contrast this model with the model suggested by court proceedings involving experts, sketch an alternative conception of knowledge which places appeals to authority in the appropriate central role, and, finally, show how all this can be used to illuminate and improve the teaching of critical thinking. A task of such magnitude is, of course, impossible in this limited space and as a result, many important issues will receive short shrift. My hope is at least to sketch the outline of a new approach to authoritative appeals and its implications for critical thinking.

2. Critique of the Traditional Approach

The typical analysis of arguments involving appeals to authority is as follows:

A has asserted P.

P falls within area of knowledge K.

A is a recognized expert regarding K.

Therefore, P is acceptable (Govier 1988, p.83).

Some authors, including Govier, and Blair and Johnson, also point out that additional considerations surrounding such an appeal include:

The expert must not be in a position of bias.

The experts on K agree about P.

The more eminent the expert, the stronger the appeal.

3. Difficulties With This Approach

Before exploring the difficulties with this approach, I must make a rough and, I hope, uncontroversial distinction between particular and general judgments. By this distinction I have in mind the difference exemplified by an engineer, on one hand, giving her view as to why a bridge collapsed (a particular judgment), and, on the other, offering the physical and engineering theory of stress (general judgment). The reason for this distinction is that an expert’s expertise is utilized in different ways in the two kinds of judgments.

In the typical complex particular judgment, the expert is called upon to use her explicit and implicit understanding of the issue. In a particular judgment, there is more reliance on the expert’s individual expertise, experience, and even eminence in her field. In contrast, in the general judgment we are relying on the expert’s knowledge of views held in her field; her responsibility in enunciating this knowledge is to convey the wisdom of the discipline, not her personal views. In the case of a general judgment, the expert is primarily a vehicle for transmitting the views developed and confirmed in her discipline. Significantly, this is characteristic of the situation we find ourselves in as teachers: we essentially convey knowledge of our discipline.

If, indeed, the expert functions differently in the two kinds of judgments, then any adequate model of appeal to authority must recognize this distinction. But no model I have found does so. Those models which emphasize the eminence of the authority as part of the criteria of assessment seem to be based on the particular judgment model. Those that only mention the importance of consensus of the expert’s discipline seem concerned only with the general claim.

In critical thinking, we are mainly concerned with the expert as a source of general claims – regarding, for example, the nature of the solar system, the causes of cancer. For this reason we are predominantly concerned with the expert as representative of her discipline rather than as someone using her expertise to make a particular judgment. In this paper, I will only discuss appeals to authority in relation to general claims. There remains much to be said about particular claims, especially in value-oriented disciplines and everyday decisions.

What then are the implications of observing that the expert is primarily a vehicle for transmitting knowledge of her discipline rather than an individual source of knowledge? First, we must abandon the model of the expert as someone who can give us knowledge simply by telling us her view. We listen to experts because they are representatives of a body of knowledge. That is why there should not be expert disagreement in the fields to which we are appealing: we are not really interested in the expert’s personal opinion, but rather that of her discipline. If there is no consensus in the discipline, then the discipline has, in a sense, nothing (univocally) to say. Only by viewing the expert as a discipline spokesperson can we understand the requirements of appeals to authority, deal with Locke’s objection, and even make sense of our role as teachers of critical thinking.

4. Expert Disagreement

One thing should alert us to the weakness of the traditional analysis. In this approach, disagreement among experts renders appeals to authority fallacious. But many of the interesting cases with which one has to deal will involve conflict among experts. What about conflicting opinions from doctors, disagreement among experts about the proper treatment of AIDS, or the causes of cancer? The courts must deal with expert conflict as a matter of course. Are all such conflicts to be deemed sufficient ground for dismissing the expert opinions presented? This seems much too drastic to be sensible.^[5]

5. Legal Approaches to the Use of Experts^[6]

Rather than dismiss competing expert claims, the courts insist that the expert not just deliver her opinion but also explaining her reasoning. Given the model I am criticizing, this requirement would seem surprising. Should one not just accept the claim if the expert has the relevant credentials? But the courts are faced with conflicts among experts and feel too accountable to simply bow to the authority of the expert.

Locke’s objection would be taken quite seriously by the courts. They cannot be utilizing mere “opiniatrety” because they are responsible for legal decisions. The courts’ compromise is to take expert opinion, but require that the expert explain herself so that the court can both judge (where there is conflict, or just doubt) and understand.

Because courts have to deal with conflicting testimony, they have to make a judgment on the merits of the expert’s argument. They assess the clarity, methods, apparent bias, and plausibility of competing experts’ explanations in order to decide how to weigh the opinions. Experts in the courtroom are an exception to the general rule that the courts engage in reasoning and the witnesses are merely to report what they saw, heard, etc. But because the experts’ opinions are based on reasoning from the facts and not merely on asserting them, the courts reserve the right to examine this reasoning. In so doing, they are not restricted to considering only character questions when evaluating testimony and argument but rather use all evidence to determine the weight to be given to the experts’ claims. It seems to me that this approach is exactly the right strategy for any rational person to take.^[7]

The procedures of the court should show us that the sharp distinction made between testimony and argument is untenable. We need the expert’s credibility before we will believe her arguments, but her credibility is not the sole basis of our appraisal. Argument assessment is to some extent discipline-specific and, for this reason, we need the assurance of the expert that this line of reasoning and these types of inferences, are respected within her field. We need her reassurance that she is not ignoring counter-evidence or contrary opinions within her field. We also must, of course, comprehend and be persuaded by the evidence and explanations. But even allowing our understanding to be moved by the expert’s account is itself an act of trust in her authority.

The crucial point for critical thinking is that appeals to authority must involve justification and explanation. What the Lockean model (and the contemporary one given above) ignores is the expert’s obligation to supply justification for her position. The model cannot tolerate disagreement among experts because it provides virtually no method of adjudication. This point is the most crucial objection and, indeed, is the basis of Locke’s criticism: the model seems to require just too much mindless trust in the experts. By not requiring that the expert provide any argument, explanation or justification for her assertion, the model leaves the believer in a hopeless state of acute epistemic dependence.^[8] It probably also leaves the layperson who accepts the claim with no real understanding of the claim she now believes.

6. Appeal to Authority and Education

To the extent that education consists simply in telling without justification and explanation, it, too, leaves the student in a state of epistemic dependence (to say nothing of ignorance!). But without trust in authority, there would be no successful transmission of knowledge. For example, in part we believe in the biological theory of germs because it is explained to us in a manner that makes sense. But we also believe in it because it is supplied and backed by a well-established discipline. Surely we all now know that it is quite easy to come up with a plausible explanation for some phenomenon that just does not stand up to careful empirical or dialectical attention. The only way we know that the plausible explanations which are supplied to us by our teachers are, indeed, correct (not just plausible) is because of the credibility of the source.

Without the explanation we find ourselves in the position of saying, “I don’t know, but they say . . . “ When we fail to give any argument that supports the claim (for example, that it is based on these tests, or fits in that existing understanding), we are admitting that we do not really know the claim to be true, only that we have some authoritative reason to believe it. This admission is the weakest of all appeals to authority and should hardly be our paradigm.

Legitimating the demand for explanation and justification is, therefore, the key to the proper use of authority. It provides for understanding and for the opportunity for the layperson to adjudicate between competing expert claims or claims in fields that are not characterized by consensus. This opens the door to utilizing (with appropriate skepticism) expertise in value-laden fields.

7. Appeal to Authority in Value-Laden Fields

Most authors exclude appeal to authority in value-laden disciplines. But what about great moralists, literary critics, aestheticians? Is there no place for appeal to authority in these cases? Perhaps the appeals are weaker, but are they fallacious? Are these all to be ignored? Lacking a theory to justify the rejection of such appeals to authority, it is hard to see what the basis is for rejection of appeals to authority in art criticism, philosophy, etc. There certainly is expertise among literary and art critics, architects, and town planners, though these fields are rife with appeals to value. Let me suggest briefly that any discipline qua discipline must have standards which are more or less consensually shared. Otherwise there would be no discipline, no way to justify awarding degrees, grades, and such. To the extent that there is some underlying consensus, a powerful case can be made for legitimate appeals to at least consensually held views. Again, this all requires much development.

8. Eminence

My last criticism of the standard model concerns the claim that the more eminent the expert, the more successful the appeal. In most general cases, someone with adequate and appropriate knowledge of a field — such as a local professor — is all we need. It is not her expertise that we need so much as her competence to transmit the knowledge of the discipline. In some cases, there may be problems in appealing to an eminent expert for she may be vulnerable to, or suspected of, bias because of her involvement with a leading or even a dissenting theory. Since we usually need the expert to convey the knowledge of the discipline, eminence is not a necessary criterion.

The critique developed above is based on the view that a large part of knowledge is grounded not in observation or intuition, but in expert consensus. I wish to make few remarks in support of this position. Whatever may be its theoretical problems, it seems to me unquestionable that the layperson has justified belief in most theoretical propositions when she knows these beliefs to be supported by the relevant discipline and has some minimal grip on the justification that supports them. I will call the view that knowledge is grounded in expert consensus the “social theory of knowledge”.

9. The Social Theory of Knowledge

While various philosophers since Descartes have attempted to limit the skeptical effect of his approach, few have abandoned the essentially individualistic approach that led to the skeptical result. But when we start noticing which claims people typically say they “know,” we can easily observe that these include theoretical, general claims of their scientific culture, not just claims about their own experience. For example, the view of the solar system as involving planets that revolve around the sun — indeed the picture of the solar system that appears in every popular text on the subject — is a view that most people would rightly claim to know to be true. We also know that the material world is made of atoms that combine together into molecules, that bacteria and viruses are the causes of diseases, that burning is a form of rapid oxidation, and the list goes on. Not everyone may claim to know these, but that is a testimony to their ignorance, not their insight into the true nature of knowledge. And how many of us know these facts in any great depth? In particular, how many of us could prove or even cite the observations that prove them? Are we rendered into a state of mere “opiniatrety” as a result?

I think the answer is clearly no. In fact, as Hardwig and others (Walsh, Lehrer) have pointed out, science itself involves mutual dependence and trust among its members. Those who have shown that science is inadequately grounded in experimental evidence are correct, but this position does not have to lead to relativism. Rather, it underlines the crucial role that collective evaluation plays in the establishment of a scientific theory. And the success of this social process is what justifies the layperson’s confidence in the results, and justifies appealing to expert pronouncements. There is much more to say here (see Stitch et al. 1980, Walsh 1971, Lehrer 1977), but I now wish to turn to the practical implications of my view.

10. Teaching and the Social Theory of Knowledge

The primary job of a teacher is to transmit knowledge. The teacher is not in class to share her beliefs and opinions, though, of course, we all do. (And do so rightly, but that is not our main job). We are the representatives of our disciplines and in the classroom we pass on to our students what the discipline believes is both important and true. This is seen most easily, perhaps, in those disciplines where course content is clearly delineated, such as calculus and first year physics, but it is similar for English 100 or even critical thinking courses and since I am writing for critical thinking instructors and since critical thinking is my area of expertise, let me begin to illustrate my point by discussing the role of a critical thinking instructor.

It is one of the curious aspects of the discipline of critical thinking that the deeper epistemological worries of philosophers seldom surface in the texts or in class. Teaching introductory philosophy is always a case of teaching “on the one hand . . . but on the other hand . . .” In critical thinking classes, however, we unabashedly teach students the norms of reasoning. And we are, I would certainly argue, quite justified in doing so. Of course, we do not teach that our particular analysis of a piece of text is a case of knowledge, but we do teach that the “following considerations should be taken into account when assessing a claim based on testimony.” We do not teach these epistemological norms as mere beliefs; rather, we teach them as part of the “know how” of being a critical thinker. This does not, and should not, preclude giving the rationale for these rules, but these are rules which a student must know in order to be able to do analysis and arrive at reasonable beliefs about claims and arguments. We ask ourselves as critical thinking instructors, “What basic rules and skills does a student need to know in order to evaluate arguments?” Note that we ask what a student needs to “know” not “needs to believe?” Indeed, if we ask that question, it sounds like we are involved in manipulation. As teachers, we only have a right to transmit what we know. We can, of course, tell our students what we believe and why, but we do not teach, instruct, and test them about our “beliefs.” And how do we distinguish the justifiably teachable and testable from our other beliefs? Is it not our perception of the consensus of our discipline that guides us? In teaching critical thinking, as in logic and mathematics, we are operating in an area of significant consensus within a discipline and are authorized, therefore, to teach “one-handed” philosophy; that is, to teach the accepted theories as knowledge. In those cases where our own beliefs differ from our perception of the consensus, we are obligated to alert our students and to make this recognition govern our procedures.

11. Implications for Teaching Critical Thinking

If scientific, historical, and perhaps, all theoretical knowledge is, indeed, grounded in collective decision procedures, especially those of academic peer review, what are the implications for teaching students of critical thinking about authority?

The assessment of authority must be given a more central place in our textbooks. Equally important, it must not be understood (as it typically is) as simply an appeal to the claims of an individual with appropriate expertise, but rather as an appeal to the claims supported by the consensus of the discipline, for, in cases of general judgments, the expert is primarily a well-informed reporter.

We must recognize that most knowledge and information is going to be supplied to our students and ourselves by experts. As a result, the responsibility for the critical thinker becomes principally learning how to assess sources and expert claims. The student must be taught how to do this, and, indeed, we, as teachers of critical thinking, must think more about this ourselves. As Hardwig points out, when assessing experts we must frequently resort to a variety of ad hominem considerations. To the extent this is true, we should supply our students with the methods of appropriate ad hominems – for example, understanding the sociology of the disciplines, reading citation indexes, identifying creditable journals, and detecting when experts are going beyond “authorized” claims. We need to teach about the kind of blindness that is apt to infect experts, and about the fallibility and limitations of scientific claims. We must teach our students their legitimate right to question experts and how to assess their answers. It is easy enough to promote the slogan “Question authority!” but, if we do not also give students the norms to assess the answers and defend the questions, they will lack the rational confidence necessary for this questioning to be productive. We all know how to do some of this, but much more could be done in developing the rules of thumb that we could pass on to our students.

The role of consensus must be explained and emphasized. We should explain to our students why consensus or the lack of it is so relevant to assessing appeals to authority.

A new model of appeal to authority which emphasizes the importance of the expert providing explanation and justification must be taught. Below is a preliminary sketch of a new model of appeal to authority. Here I have focused on only one type of claim: an empirical/general claim. Similar models would be needed for all four possible types (including empirical/particular, value/general and value/particular).

A says P

P is in A’s area of competence

Is P’s claim particular or general?

If the claim is empirical/general, then we can ask whether the nature of A’s discipline is fractured or homogeneous?

If it is homogeneous, then:

Is P a well-accepted claim in A’s discipline?

If yes,

Why is P well accepted?

If explanation is plausible and intelligible, then P can be considered knowledge.

If no, why does A believe P?

Intrinsic plausibility of claim

The more implausible, the more evidence necessary.

Is the justification plausible?

Are the reasons for rejection of other positions plausible?

What are A’s credentials relative to discipline?

What are A’s likely biases?

Prestige of A

If discipline is fractured, then weigh crediting of P according to:

Nature of discipline

Intrinsic plausibility of claim

The more implausible, the more evidence necessary.

Plausibility of the explanation.

Reason for rejection other positions.

Clarity versus vagueness.

Reported depth of evidence.

Apparent objectivity of A.

Prestige of A.

Is the expert’s claim being scrutinized by her peers?^[9]

The model obviously needs refinement both because the situation is more complicated than the model suggests and because, to be useful, the model must actually be simpler in its outline. But let me offer a few remarks. Note that appeals to authority in disciplines that are fractured and/or without consensus are really quite different than appeals to views supported by discipline consensus. In the former, the layperson must base her judgment much more on her own assessment of the arguments than on the weight of the expert. And of course, in these areas, no one can claim knowledge, only justified belief. Disciplines themselves may be said to have degrees of credibility.^[10]

12. The Implication for Teaching in Other Disciplines

We are far more frequently knowledge consumers than we are producers. Students taking introductory courses in a discipline are unlikely to ever be producers in this area. They should be taught not only the current understandings but also how to be competent consumers of the research in the area (for examples, reputable journals to read, methods of assessment, appropriate size of samples, time required for results to be evaluated and accepted) — basically a discipline-specific sociology of knowledge. This is desirable not because this is the “game you play in biology,” but because this is the way biological theories and evidence are validated; this is the way knowledge is produced in this field.

I read with some interest that Mark Weinstein at the Montclair Institute for Critical Thinking appears to be trying to get faculty to develop and articulate their discipline’s authoritative structure under the rubric of epistemology of the disciplines. While I am not saying that epistemology is sociology (and I am not arguing that Weinstein is saying this either), I do want to say that the “authority” structure of a discipline is certainly relevant for assessing claims and for understanding which claims deserve rational belief. For the non-expert, such information maybe some of the most relevant information she can possess in assessing an expert’s claims.

13. Summary

The role of authority in supporting knowledge has been insufficiently articulated both in the discipline of epistemology and in the teaching of critical thinking. But because critical thinking instruction aims to give students guidance in the everyday assessment of claims, it is absolutely crucial that use of authorities and their evaluation be taught. The goal of introductory post-secondary education should be to equip students to be rational “information consumers” — individuals who can think critically about and use intelligently all sorts of claims, but especially those supplied by the intellectual authorities of the culture. Whether it as a citizen, businessperson, or intellectual, a rational person’s understanding of the world is constituted largely by authoritative knowledge. The critical thinker must be proficient in the use and evaluation of such knowledge as well as understanding the delicate art of rational trust and appropriate skepticism.

References

Black, M. 1952. Critical Thinking: An Introduction to Logic and the Scientific Method, 2nd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Blair, J.A. and R.H. Johnson. 1980. “The Recent Development of Informal Logic.” In Informal Logic: The First International Symposium, edited by J.A. Blair and R.H. Johnson, 3-28. Inverness, CA: Edgepress.

Cederblom, J. and D. Paulsen. 1982. Critical Reasoning. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Govier, T. 1988. A Practical Study of Argument, 2nd edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Johnson, R.H. and J.A. Blair. 1983. Logical Self-Defense, 2nd edition. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Hamblin, C. 1970. Fallacies. London: Metheun.

Hardwig, J. 1985. “Epistemic Dependence.” Journal of Philosophy 82, 7: 335-349 (reprinted in Govier with slight modifications as “Relying on Experts”).

Imwinkelried, E. ed. 1981. Scientific and Expert Evidence, 2nd edition. New York: Practising Law Institute.

Lehrer, K. 1977. “Social Information.” Monist 9: 473- 487.

Polanyi, M. and H. Prosch. 1975. Meaning. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Siegel, H. 1988a. Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking, and Education. New York: Routledge.

______. 1988b. “Rationality and Epistemic Dependence.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 20, 1: I-6.

Stitch, S.P. and R.E. Nisbett. 1980. “Justification and the Psychology of Human Reasoning.” Philosophy of Science 47: 188-202.

Waller, B.N. 1988. Critical Thinking: Consider the Verdict. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Walsh, W.H. 1971. “Knowledge In Its Social Setting.” Mind. 80, 319: 321-336.

Walton, D. and J. Woods. 1982. Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Walton, D. 1984. Logical Dialogue Games and Fallacies. Lanhma MD: University Press of America.

______. 1987. Informal Fallacies: Toward a Theory of Argument Criticisms. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co.

Welbourne, M. 1986. The Community of Knowledge. New Jersey: Aberdeen University Press.