Results for 'trust in experts'

987 found
Order:
  1. Trusting scientific experts in an online world.Kenneth Boyd - 2022 - Synthese 200 (1):1-31.
    A perennial problem in social epistemology is the problem of expert testimony, specifically expert testimony regarding scientific issues: for example, while it is important for me to know information pertaining to anthropogenic climate change, vaccine safety, Covid-19, etc., I may lack the scientific background required to determine whether the information I come across is, in fact, true. Without being able to evaluate the science itself, then, I need to find trustworthy expert testifiers to listen to. A major project in social (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  2. Social Indicators of Trust in the Age of Informational Chaos.T. Y. Branch & Gloria Origgi - 2022 - Social Epistemology 36 (5):533-540.
    Expert knowledge regularly informs personal and civic-decision making. To decide which experts to trust, lay publics —including policymakers and experts from other domains—use different epistemic and non-epistemic cues. Epistemic cues such as honesty, like when experts are forthcoming about conflicts of interest, are a popular way of understanding how people evaluate and decide which experts to trust. However, many other epistemic cues, like the evidence supporting information from experts, are inaccessible to lay publics. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  3. Why Trust Raoult? How Social Indicators Inform the Reputations of Experts.T. Y. Branch, Gloria Origgi & Tiffany Morisseau - 2022 - Social Epistemology 36 (3):299-316.
    The COVID-19 crisis has highlighted the considerable challenge of sourcing expertise and determining which experts to trust. Dissonant information fostered controversy in public discourse and encouraged an appeal to a wide range of social indicators of trustworthiness in order to decide whom to trust. We analyze public discourse on expertise by examining how social indicators inform the reputation of Dr. Didier Raoult, the French microbiologist who rose to international prominence as an early advocate for using hydroxychloroquine to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4. Experts, Public Policy and the Question of Trust.Maria Baghramian & Michel Croce - 2021 - In Michael Hannon & Jeroen de Ridder (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology. New York: Routledge.
    This chapter discusses the topics of trust and expertise from the perspective of political epistemology. In particular, it addresses four main questions: (§1) How should we characterise experts and their expertise? (§2) How can non-experts recognize a reliable expert? (§3) What does it take for non-experts to trust experts? (§4) What problems impede trust in experts?
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  5. When Expert Disagreement Supports the Consensus.Finnur Dellsén - 2017 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 96 (1):142-156.
    It is often suggested that disagreement among scientific experts is a reason not to trust those experts, even about matters on which they are in agreement. In direct opposition to this view, I argue here that the very fact that there is disagreement among experts on a given issue provides a positive reason for non-experts to trust that the experts really are justified in their attitudes towards consensus theories. I show how this line (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  6. Miracles, Trust, and Ennui in Barnes’ Predictivism.P. D. Magnus - 2011 - Logos and Episteme 2 (1):103-114.
    Eric Barnes’ The Paradox of Predictivism is concerned primarily with two facts: predictivism (the fact that novel predictions play an important part in scientificconfirmation) and pluralism (the fact that scientific development is not just a matter of isolated individuals judging the truth, but at least partly a matter of trusting legitimate experts). In the middle part of the book, he peers through these two lenses at the tired realist scarecrow of the no-miracles argument. He attempts to reanimate this weatherworn (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  53
    $#*! Scientists Say: Monitoring Trust with Content Analysis.Petar Nurkić - 2024 - In Michael Resch, Nico Formanek, Joshy Ammu & Andreas Kaminski (eds.), Science and the Art of Simulation: Trust in Science. Springer.
    In addition to existing practices and norms within the institutions to which they belong, scientists form an epistemic community. The flow of information, the processes of belief formation, and the assumptions scientists are making determine the structure of an epistemic community. Members of such communities can be categorized as epistemic experts or epistemic agents. In exceptional circumstances, such as the crisis caused by the global coronavirus pandemic, the existing organization, conventions, and rules within the epistemic community are disrupted. In (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  88
    Conflicts of interest and the (in)dependence of experts advising government on immunization policies.Jean-Christophe Bélisle-Pipon, Louise Ringuette, Anne-Isabelle Cloutier, Victoria Doudenkova & Bryn Williams-Jones - 2018 - Vaccine 36 (49):7439-44.
    There has been increasing attention to financial conflicts of interest (COI) in public health research and policy making, with concerns that some decisions are not in the public interest. One notable problematic area is expert advisory committee (EAC). While COI management has focused on disclosure, it could go further and assess experts’ degree of (in)dependence with commercial interests. We analyzed COI disclosures of members of Québec’s immunization EAC (in Canada) using (In)DepScale, a tool we developed for assessing experts (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9. Experts and Cultural Narcissism. Relations in the Early 21st Century.Andrzej Klimczuk - 2012 - Lap Lambert Academic Publishing.
    Local and global dependencies and interactions between individuals, groups and institutions are becoming increasingly opaque and risky. This is due to increased importance of highly complex abstract systems created and supported in order to maintain of transport, communications, finance, energy, media, security infrastructure, as well as social and cultural institutions. These systems require the knowledge and skills of experts. Professionals that not only satisfy identified needs, but also create new thereby contribute the development of cultural narcissism phenomenon. The aim (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  10. Enhanced Epistemic Trust and the Value-Free Ideal as a Social Indicator of Trust.T. Y. Branch - 2022 - Social Epistemology 36 (5):561-575.
    Publics trust experts for personal and pro-social reasons. Scientists are among the experts publics trust most, and so, epistemic trust is routinely afforded to them. The call for epistemic trust to be more socially situated in order to account for the impact of science on society and public welfare is at the forefront of enhanced epistemic trust. I argue that the value-free ideal for science challenges establishing enhanced epistemic trust by preventing the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. Relationally Responsive Expert Trustworthiness.Ben Almassi - 2022 - Social Epistemology 36 (5):576-585.
    Social epistemologists often operationalize the task of indirectly assessing experts’ trustworthiness to identifying whose beliefs are more reliably true on matters in an area of expertise. Not only does this neglect the philosophically rich space between belief formation and testimonial utterances, it also reduces trustworthiness to reliability. In ethics of trust, by contrast, explicitly relational views of trust include things like good will and responsiveness. One might think that relational aspects can be safely set aside for social (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  12. New experts on the web?Nicola Mößner - 2024 - In Rainer Adolphi, Suzana Alpsancar, Susanne Hahn & Matthias Kettner (eds.), Philosophische Digitalisierungsforschung (I). Verantwortung, Verständigung, Vernunft, Macht. Bielefeld: transcript.
    During the Covid-19 pandemic, a considerable amount of people seem to have been lured into believing in conspiracy theories. These people deliberately disregard expert advice by virologists and physicians concerning social behaviour that is aimed at reducing the number of new infections. Disregarding traditional experts and their advice is just one example of what, in the philosophy of science, is referred to as a crisis of expertise – the phenomenon whereby people seem to have lost their trust in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Að treysta sérfræðingum [English: "Trusting Experts: What, When, and Why?"].Finnur Dellsén - 2020 - Ritið 20 (3):235-258.
    English abstract: In order for experts to serve as authorities in our society, people need to trust them when they make claims that fall within their domains of expertise. However, it also seems important for people to think independently and critically about the experts‘ conclusions – one shouldn‘t believe everything one is told. In this paper, I examine this tension with the aim of answering four closely related questions: (1) What is it to trust experts? (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. The Social Indicators of the Reputation of an Expert.Gloria Origgi - 2022 - Social Epistemology 36 (5):541-549.
    A notion that comes from the toolbox of social sciences, trust has become a mainstream epistemological concept in the last 15 years. The notion of epistemic trust has been distinguished from the notion of moral and social trust, the former involves kinds of inferences about the others that are rationally justifiable. If I trust a scientist about the efficacy of a vaccine against COVID-19, I must have an epistemic justification. I am therefore rationally justified in trusting (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  15. Believing to Belong: Addressing the Novice-Expert Problem in Polarized Scientific Communication.Helen De Cruz - 2020 - Social Epistemology 34 (5):440-452.
    There is a large gap between the specialized knowledge of scientists and laypeople’s understanding of the sciences. The novice-expert problem arises when non-experts are confronted with (real or apparent) scientific disagreement, and when they don’t know whom to trust. Because they are not able to gauge the content of expert testimony, they rely on imperfect heuristics to evaluate the trustworthiness of scientists. This paper investigates why some bodies of scientific knowledge become polarized along political fault lines. Laypeople navigate (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  16. Status Distrust of Scientific Experts.Hugh Desmond - 2022 - Social Epistemology 36 (5):586-600.
    Distrust in scientific experts can be surprisingly stubborn, persisting despite evidence supporting the experts’ views, demonstrations of their competence, or displays of good will. This stubborn distrust is often viewed as a manifestation of irrationality. By contrast, this article proposes a logic of “status distrust”: low-status individuals are objectively vulnerable to collective decision-making, and can justifiably distrust high-status scientific experts if they are not confident that the experts do not have their best interests at heart. In (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  17. From Trust to Body. Artspace, Prestige, Sensitivity.Filippo Fimiani - 2017 - In Felice Masi & Maria Catena (eds.), The Changing Faces of Space. Cham: Springer Verlag. pp. 277-288.
    What happens to artist and to viewer when painting or sculpture emancipates itself from all physical mediums? What happens to art-world experts and to museum goers and amateurs when the piece of art turns immaterial, becoming indiscernible within its surrounding empty space and within the parergonal apparatus of the exposition site? What type of verbal depiction, of critical understanding and specific knowledge is attempted under these programmed and fabricated conditions? What kind of aesthetic experience–namely embodied and sensitive–is expected when (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. Experts, Democracy, and Covid-19.Victor Karl Magnússon - 2022 - Philosophy of Medicine 3 (1).
    Two challenges have faced policymakers during the Covid-19 pandemic: First, they must determine the reliability of expert testimony in the face of uncertainty; second, they must determine the relevance of different kinds of expertise with regard to particular decisions. I argue that both these problems can be fruitfully analyzed through the lens of trust by introducing an in-depth case study of Iceland’s handling of the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. I contend that the problem of relevance highlights the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  19. Judging Expert Trustworthiness: the difference between believing and following the science.Matt Bennett - forthcoming - Social Epistemology.
    Expert-informed public policy often depends on a degree of public trust in the relevant expert authorities. But if lay citizens are not themselves authorities on the relevant area of expertise, how can they make good judgements about the trustworthiness of those who claim such authority? I argue that the answer to this question depends on the kind of trust under consideration. Specifically, I maintain that a distinction between epistemic trust and recommendation trust has consequences for novices (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Why Arguments from Expert Opinion are still Weak: A Reply to Seidel.Moti Mizrahi - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (2):238-252.
    In this paper, I reply to Seidel’s objections against my argument from expert performance to the effect that arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. I clarify what Seidel takes to be unclear points in my argument and show that it withstands Seidel’s objections.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  21.  49
    What Personality Has to Do with Trusting People Based on How They Make Decisions.Attila Tanyi, Fatih Cetin, Frithiof Svenson & Marcus Launer - manuscript
    People think that making quick decisions is important for leadership in the digital age. Business ethics experts, on the other hand, say that smart managers take their time, stay calm, and think things through before making choices. There is a long history of moral study in business ethics that both approaches can draw on. This piece uses real numbers to show how much leaders in the information age trust the skills and drive of the people they work with. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22. Expert Knowledge by Perception.Madeleine Ransom - 2020 - Philosophy 95 (3):309-335.
    Does the scope of beliefs that people can form on the basis of perception remain fixed, or can it be amplified with learning? The answer to this question is important for our understanding of why and when we ought to trust experts, and also for assessing the plausibility of epistemic foundationalism. The empirical study of perceptual expertise suggests that experts can indeed enrich their perceptual experiences through learning. Yet this does not settle the epistemic status of their (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  23. Can AI become an Expert?Hyeongyun Kim - 2024 - Journal of Ai Humanities 16 (4):113-136.
    With the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI), understanding its capabilities and limitations has become significant for mitigating unfounded anxiety and unwarranted optimism. As part of this endeavor, this study delves into the following question: Can AI become an expert? More precisely, should society confer the authority of experts on AI even if its decision-making process is highly opaque? Throughout the investigation, I aim to identify certain normative challenges in elevating current AI to a level comparable to that of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24. Epistemic Autonomy, Trust, and Conflicts of Interest: A Reply to McBrayer.Joshua Brecka - 2024 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 13 (6):31-39.
    Whether we ought to trust the testimony of another person is often thought to primarily depend on features like their evidence, knowledge, or level of expertise. No doubt these are epistemically relevant features. However, a recent paper by Justin P. McBrayer (2024) convincingly argues that a testifier's interests may be more important than their expertise when it comes to how we should allocate our epistemic trust in them. Just think of the proverbial used car salesman. You should not (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. Challenging the Majority Rule in Matters of Truth.Bernd Lahno - 2014 - Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics 7 (2):54-72.
    The majority rule has caught much attention in recent debate about the aggregation of judgments. But its role in finding the truth is limited. A majority of expert judgments is not necessarily authoritative, even if all experts are equally competent, if they make their judgments independently of each other, and if all the judgments are based on the same source of (good) evidence. In this paper I demonstrate this limitation by presenting a simple counterexample and a related general result. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  26. Skepticism and the Value of Distrust.Maria Baghramian & Silvia Caprioglio Panizza - forthcoming - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy.
    Faced with current urgent calls for more trust in experts, especially in high impact and politically sensitive domains, such as climate science and COVID-19, the complex and problematic nature of public trust in experts and the need for a more critical approach to the topic are easy to overlook. Scepticism – at least in its Humean mitigated form that encourages independent, questioning attitudes – can prove valuable to democratic governance, but stands in opposition to the cognitive (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  27. Capable but Amoral? Comparing AI and Human Expert Collaboration in Ethical Decision Making.Suzanne Https://Orcidorg Tolmeijer, Markus Https://Orcidorg Christen, Serhiy Kandul, Markus Https://Orcidorg Kneer & Abraham Https://Orcidorg Bernstein - 2022 - Proceedings of the 2022 Chi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 160:160:1–17.
    While artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly applied for decision-making processes, ethical decisions pose challenges for AI applications. Given that humans cannot always agree on the right thing to do, how would ethical decision-making by AI systems be perceived and how would responsibility be ascribed in human-AI collaboration? In this study, we investigate how the expert type (human vs. AI) and level of expert autonomy (adviser vs. decider) influence trust, perceived responsibility, and reliance. We find that participants consider humans to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28. Inconvenient Truth and Inductive Risk in Covid-19 Science.Eli I. Lichtenstein - 2022 - Philosophy of Medicine 3 (1):1-25.
    To clarify the proper role of values in science, focusing on controversial expert responses to Covid-19, this article examines the status of (in)convenient hypotheses. Polarizing cases like health experts downplaying mask efficacy to save resources for healthcare workers, or scientists dismissing “accidental lab leak” hypotheses in view of potential xenophobia, plausibly involve modifying evidential standards for (in)convenient claims. Societies could accept that scientists handle (in)convenient claims just like nonscientists, and give experts less political power. Or societies could hold (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  29. Cognitive islands and runaway echo chambers: problems for epistemic dependence on experts.C. Thi Nguyen - 2020 - Synthese 197 (7):2803-2821.
    I propose to study one problem for epistemic dependence on experts: how to locate experts on what I will call cognitive islands. Cognitive islands are those domains for knowledge in which expertise is required to evaluate other experts. They exist under two conditions: first, that there is no test for expertise available to the inexpert; and second, that the domain is not linked to another domain with such a test. Cognitive islands are the places where we have (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  30. Open Source Production of Encyclopedias: Editorial Policies at the Intersection of Organizational and Epistemological Trust.Paul B. de Laat - 2012 - Social Epistemology 26 (1):71-103.
    The ideas behind open source software are currently applied to the production of encyclopedias. A sample of six English text-based, neutral-point-of-view, online encyclopedias of the kind are identified: h2g2, Wikipedia, Scholarpedia, Encyclopedia of Earth, Citizendium and Knol. How do these projects deal with the problem of trusting their participants to behave as competent and loyal encyclopedists? Editorial policies for soliciting and processing content are shown to range from high discretion to low discretion; that is, from granting unlimited trust to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  31. Facing Epistemic Authorities: Where Democratic Ideals and Critical Thinking Mislead Cognition.Thomas Grundmann - 2021 - In Sven Bernecker, Amy K. Flowerree & Thomas Grundmann (eds.), The Epistemology of Fake News. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    Disrespect for the truth, the rise of conspiracy thinking, and a pervasive distrust in experts are widespread features of the post-truth condition in current politics and public opinion. Among the many good explanations of these phenomena there is one that is only rarely discussed: that something is wrong with our deeply entrenched intellectual standards of (i) using our own critical thinking without any restriction and (ii) respecting the judgment of every rational agent as epistemically relevant. In this paper, I (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  32. The Humility Heuristic, or: People Worth Trusting Admit to What They Don’t Know.Mattias Skipper - 2020 - Social Epistemology 35 (3):323-336.
    People don't always speak the truth. When they don't, we do better not to trust them. Unfortunately, that's often easier said than done. People don't usually wear a ‘Not to be trusted!’ badge on their sleeves, which lights up every time they depart from the truth. Given this, what can we do to figure out whom to trust, and whom not? My aim in this paper is to offer a partial answer to this question. I propose a heuristic—the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  33. Exploring Metaphor’s Communicative Effects in Reasoning on Vaccination.Francesca Ervas, Pietro Salis, Cristina Sechi & Rachele Fanari - 2022 - Frontiers in Psychology 13 (1027733.):1-15.
    Introduction: The paper investigates the impact of the use of metaphors in reasoning tasks concerning vaccination, especially for defeasible reasoning cases. We assumed that both metaphor and defeasible reasoning can be relevant to let people understand vaccination as an important collective health phenomenon, by anticipating possible defeating conditions. -/- Methods: We hypothesized that extended metaphor could improve both the argumentative and the communicative effects of the message. We designed an empirical study to test our main hypotheses: participants (N = 196, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. (1 other version)Trustworthy Science Advice: The Case of Policy Recommendations.Torbjørn Gundersen - 2023 - Res Publica 30 (Onine):1-19.
    This paper examines how science advice can provide policy recommendations in a trustworthy manner. Despite their major political importance, expert recommendations are understudied in the philosophy of science and social epistemology. Matthew Bennett has recently developed a notion of what he calls recommendation trust, according to which well-placed trust in experts’ policy recommendations requires that recommendations are aligned with the interests of the trust-giver. While interest alignment might be central to some cases of public trust, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35. On the Epistemic Significance of Expert Conversion.Dax Bennington - 2021 - Dissertation,
    Much of our knowledge of the world depends on the testimony of experts. Experts sometimes change their minds and disagree with each other. What ought a novice do when an expert changes their mind? This dissertation provides an account of when expert conversion is epistemically significant and how the novice ought to rationally defer to expert conversion. In answering when expert conversion is epistemically significant, I provide a diagnostic tool that emphasizes the conversion seeming to be evidence-based and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. How can we assess whether to trust collectives of scientists?Elinor Clark - forthcoming - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.
    A great many important decisions we make in life depend on scientific information that we are not in a position to assess. So it seems we must defer to experts. By now there are a variety of criteria on offer by which non-experts can judge the trustworthiness of a scientist responsible for producing or promulgating this information. But science is, for the most part, a collective not an individual enterprise. This paper explores which of the criteria for judging (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. Sucht oder Autonomie? Neue ExpertInnen im Netz.Nicola Mößner - 2024 - In Rainer Adolphi, Suzana Alpsancar, Susanne Hahn & Matthias Kettner (eds.), Philosophische Digitalisierungsforschung (I). Verantwortung, Verständigung, Vernunft, Macht. Bielefeld: transcript. pp. 197-217.
    During the Covid-19 pandemic, a significant number of people has seemingly been lured in believing conspiracy theories. Many deliberately disregarded expert advices by virologists and physicians to reduce new infections. This turning away from traditional expert authorities exemplifies the »crisis of expertise« that has been discussed in the philosophy of science for some time, namely that many people seem to have lost their trust in the established authority of expert knowledge and are looking for epistemic alternatives, especially on the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. Contesting the Market: An Assessment of Capitalism's Threat to Democracy.Michael Fuerstein - 2015 - In Subramanian Rangan (ed.), Performance and Progress: Essays on Capitalism, Business, and Society. Oxford University Press.
    I argue that capitalism presents a threat to “democratic contestation”: the egalitarian, socially distributed capacity to affect how, why, and whether power is used. Markets are not susceptible to mechanisms of accountability, nor are they bearers of intentions in the way that political power-holders are. This makes them resistant to the kind of rational, intentional oversight that constitutes one of democracy’s social virtues. I identify four social costs associated with this problem: the vulnerability of citizens to arbitrary interference, the insensitivity (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  39. On the Uses and Abuses of Celebrity Epistemic Power.Alfred Archer, Mark Alfano & Matthew Dennis - 2024 - Social Epistemology 38 (6):759-773.
    ABSTRACT The testimonies of celebrities affect the lives of their many followers who pay attention to what they say. This gives celebrities a high degree of epistemic power, which has come under scrutiny during the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper investigates the duties that arise from this power. We argue that celebrities have a negative duty of testimonial justice not to undermine trust in authoritative sources by spreading misinformation or directing attention to untrustworthy sources. Moreover, celebrities have a general imperfect (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  40. Technikvertrauen. Beiträge zur Technikfolgenabschätzung jenseits von Akzeptanz und Akzeptabilität?Sebastian Weydner-Volkmann - 2021 - Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie Und Praxis 30 (2):53-59.
    This article explores the potential for “trust in technology” to make a productive conceptual contribution to the ethical evaluation of technology, complementing the concepts of “acceptance” and “acceptability” already established in technology assessment. It shows that for digital technologies in particular, “trust” can better address aspects of security against attacks as it allows to integrate concepts of IT security. Furthermore, “trustworthy technology” allows for a better inclusion of lay perspectives, since rationally justified trust in the sense of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41. Bioethics Should Not Seek to Reflect Public Opinion.Benjamin Gregg - 2024 - American Journal of Bioethics 24 (9):42-45.
    Bioethicists’ views diverge public opinion on various ethical issues, particularly in healthcare. For instance, bioethicists generally oppose payment for organs and advocate for preventing death at any age, whereas the public is more supportive of organ payment and prioritizing younger patients. I offer four arguments on how best to view this divergence. (a) Bioethicists’ specialized training, objectivity, and reliance on research often lead to views that differ from those of the public, which may be less informed and more influenced by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  42. Review of Francesco Guala, Understanding Institutions, The Science and Philosophy of Living Together, Princeton University Press, 2016, 222 p. in Annals of Luigi Einaudi Foundation, vol LI(3). [REVIEW]Tieffenbach Emma - 2018 - Annals of the Fondazione Luigi Einaudi:201-206.
    If one wishes to understand what money is, to whom should one turn as the most reliable source of knowledge? Of course, economists propose themselves as the experts on the matter. Who, if not those who study in- terest rates, prices and exchanges could know more about the nature of money? Yet, with a few exceptions, those philosophers in the burgeoning field of social ontology who ask ‘what is money?’ (or, for that matter, ‘what is a marriage?, ‘what is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  43. Transparency is Surveillance.C. Thi Nguyen - 2021 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 105 (2):331-361.
    In her BBC Reith Lectures on Trust, Onora O’Neill offers a short, but biting, criticism of transparency. People think that trust and transparency go together but in reality, says O'Neill, they are deeply opposed. Transparency forces people to conceal their actual reasons for action and invent different ones for public consumption. Transparency forces deception. I work out the details of her argument and worsen her conclusion. I focus on public transparency – that is, transparency to the public over (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  44. (1 other version)The Epistemic Circumstances of Democracy.Fabienne Peter - 2016 - In Michael Brady & Miranda Fricker (eds.), The Epistemic Life of Groups: Essays in the Epistemology of Collectives. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press UK. pp. 133 - 149.
    Does political decision-making require experts or can a democracy be trusted to make correct decisions? This question has a long-standing tradition in political philosophy, going back at least to Plato’s Republic. Critics of democracy tend to argue that democracy cannot be trusted in this way while advocates tend to argue that it can. Both camps agree that it is the epistemic quality of the outcomes of political decision-making processes that underpins the legitimacy of political institutions. In recent political philosophy, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   11 citations  
  45. Dismantling the deficit model of science communication using Ludwik Fleck’s theory of thinking collectives.Victoria M. Wang - forthcoming - In Jonathan Y. Tsou, Shaw Jamie & Carla Fehr (eds.), Values, Pluralism, and Pragmatism: Themes from the Work of Matthew J. Brown. Cham: Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Springer.
    Numerous societal issues, from climate change to pandemics, require public engagement with scientific research. Such engagement reveals challenges that can arise when experts communicate with laypeople. One of the most common frameworks for framing these communicative interactions is the deficit model of science communication, which holds that laypeople lack scientific knowledge and/or positive attitudes towards science, and that imparting knowledge will fill knowledge gaps, lead to desirable attitude/behavior changes, and increase trust in science. §1 introduces the deficit model (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. Knowledge Brokers in Crisis: Public Communication of Science During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Carlo Martini, Davide Battisti, Federico Bina & Monica Consolandi - 2022 - Social Epistemology 36 (5):656-669.
    Knowledge brokers are among the main channels of communication between scientists and the public and a key element to establishing a relation of trust between the two. But translating knowledge from the scientific community to a wider audience presents several difficulties, which can be accentuated in times of crisis. In this paper we study some of the problems that knowledge brokers face when communicating in times of crisis. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, we collected interviews with (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  47. Self-presentation in Instagram: promotion of a personal brand in social networks.Anna Shutaleva, Anastasia N. Novgorodtseva & Oksana S. Ryapalova - 2022 - ECONOMIC CONSULTANT 37 (1):27-40.
    Introduction. The development of online marketing in social networks creates unique opportunities for personal selling. Especially these opportunities are manifested in online education when they buy a brand of an expert with experience in a particular field. That is why a competitive space is being formed in the Instagram social network, where a personal brand acts as a product or service. -/- Materials and methods. Studying the effectiveness of promoting a personal brand in social networks based on the Instagram platform (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  48.  13
    Ethical & Legal Concerns of Artificial Intelligence in the Healthcare Sector.G. B. Vindhya, N. Mahesh & R. Meghana - 2024 - International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology 13 (11):18687-18691.
    The Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being used in healthcare in Jordan, paying special attention to the ethical and legal issues it brings. Although AI can greatly benefit health services by enhancing diagnostics, patient care, and how things run smoothly, it also raises some worries about data privacy, transparency, and following the rules. To understand the situation in Jordan better, the study involved a discussion group with healthcare workers, legal professionals, and AI experts. The results indicate that while the Jordanian (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  49. Expertise and the fragmentation of intellectual autonomy.C. Thi Nguyen - 2018 - Philosophical Inquiries 6 (2):107-124.
    In The Great Endarkenment, Elijah Millgram argues that the hyper-specialization of expert domains has led to an intellectual crisis. Each field of human knowledge has its own specialized jargon, knowledge, and form of reasoning, and each is mutually incomprehensible to the next. Furthermore, says Millgram, modern scientific practical arguments are draped across many fields. Thus, there is no person in a position to assess the success of such a practical argument for themselves. This arrangement virtually guarantees that mistakes will accrue (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  50. Trust in Medical Artificial Intelligence: A Discretionary Account.Philip J. Nickel - 2022 - Ethics and Information Technology 24 (1):1-10.
    This paper sets out an account of trust in AI as a relationship between clinicians, AI applications, and AI practitioners in which AI is given discretionary authority over medical questions by clinicians. Compared to other accounts in recent literature, this account more adequately explains the normative commitments created by practitioners when inviting clinicians’ trust in AI. To avoid committing to an account of trust in AI applications themselves, I sketch a reductive view on which discretionary authority is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
1 — 50 / 987