Track Records: A Cautionary Tale

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (forthcoming)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In the literature on expert trust, it is often assumed that track records are the gold standard for evaluating expertise, and the difficulty of expert identification arises from either the lack of access to track records, or the inability to assess them. I show, using a computational model, that even in an idealized environment where agents have a God’s eye view on track records, they may fail to identify experts. Under plausible conditions, selecting testimony based on track records ends up reducing overall accuracy, and preventing the community from identifying the real experts.

Author's Profile

Alice C.W. Huang
Harvard University

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-10-25

Downloads
368 (#60,676)

6 months
174 (#18,530)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?