Theory of Knowledge - Course Companion for Students Marija Uzunova Dang Arvin Singh Uzunov Dang

take sides in significant debates in an
•
manner
informed
appreciate and be curious about the
•
of others.
perspectives
2 explores the phenomena of posttruthism,
Chapter
misinformation and distrust in
that have surfaced prominently in
expertise
last decade. Chapter 7 examines scientific
the
and denialism in depth. We turn
controversy
to examining how we, as individuals
now
knowers, deal with what appears to be
and
new normal: political polarization and
the
experts are divided, and we are not
When
ourselves, whom do we trust? One
experts
is to consider the positions and
approach
of other experts carefully and to
judgments
the majority opinion. The philosopher
discern
Baggini, for example, prescribes a “triage
Julian
Which kind of expert in this area should
•
choose? I
Which particular expert is worth listening to
•
(Baggini 2017).
here?”
and authority manifest differently across
Expertise
For example, a dentist informing you of
domains.
cavity and an economist providing a forecast of
a
growth are different propositions even
economic
both experts are qualified to do what they do.
if
know that many economists are wrong in their
We
but we continue to listen to them to
predictions,
the consensus opinion—such is the nature
discern
their domain. If you are not religious, and/or
of
not believe in God, then a theologian or priest
do
have little influence on your opinions—but
might
does it mean to not believe in science or
what
how we think about expertise is
Often,
by the opinions of experts that
influenced
already trust; this seemingly innocuous
we
claim has profound implications,
knowledge
that your history and context, over
suggesting
you may have had little control, influence
which
orientation to new knowledge generally,
your
expertise specifically. The further implication
and
that to know something, you must also know
is
A triage or any other framework for
yourself.
about expertise is not a substitute
thinking
your good judgment. Jean-Paul Sartre
for
this predicament, and the unavoidable
describes
of judgment that falls on all of us.
responsibility
you seek counsel—from a priest, for example—you
If
selected that priest; and at bottom you already
have
the ways in which your knowledge
Consider
been influenced by what experts think
has
How important have experts been for the
1.
you have gained?
knowledge
Do you regularly refer to expert
2.
for the claims you make?
knowledge
Recall a situation when you have
3.
contradicting expert opinions.
encountered
people at some point encounter opinions,
Many
ideas and claims that they consider to
beliefs,
false, inaccurate and/or immoral. How we
be
such claims has implications for how we
navigate
relationships with other people, how we
navigate
about politics, who we vote for and many
think
the other decisions we take over a lifetime. Do
of
for example, avoid the category of offensive
we,
and the people who hold them? Are we
claims
their values might negatively influence
afraid
Some caution is certainly warranted, but the
us?
to avoid some categories of belief and/or
instinct
closes us off to other perspectives and world
people
with the risk that we stop learning. It also
views,
II. Perspectives
II. Perspectives
knew, more or less, what he would advise.
scientificdenialism.
(Sartre 1946)
II.1 Appeals to authority
For ref lection
Expert opinion
of truth” with three questions.
and say.
• “Are there any experts in this domain?
How did you decide whom to trust?
II.2 Intellectual humility
scientificexpertise?
privileges our current cognitive perspective, which
9