Expert Trespassing Testimony and the Ethics of Science Communication

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Scientific expert testimony is crucial to public deliberation, but it is associated with many pitfalls. This article identifies one—namely, expert trespassing testimony—which may be characterized, crudely, as the phenomenon of experts testifying outside their domain of expertise. My agenda is to provide a more precise characterization of this phenomenon and consider its ramifications for the role of science in society. I argue that expert trespassing testimony is both epistemically problematic and morally problematic. Specifically, I will argue that scientific experts are subject to a particular obligation. Roughly, this is the obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of scientific expertise in certain contexts. Thus, I argue that scientists who possess expert knowledge are confronted with hard questions about when and how to testify and, therefore, that being a scientific expert comes with great responsibility. Consequently, I provide a concrete “expert guideline” according to which scientific experts, in certain contexts, face an obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of expertise. Furthermore, I consider a number of the conditions in which the guideline is waived or overridden. On this basis, I consider the broader aspects of the roles of scientific experts in a society with a high division of cognitive labor that calls for trust in scientific expert testimony.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal for General Philosophy of Science
Volume49
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)299–318
ISSN0925-4560
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2018

Fingerprint

Science of Communication
testimony
moral philosophy
expert
obligation
expertise
speaking
Science Communication
Expert Testimony
expert knowledge
deliberation

Keywords

  • Expertise
  • Science communication
  • Science ethics
  • Scientific testimony

Cite this

@article{53f1e787c11540a88f6b81de8b4a3bcb,
title = "Expert Trespassing Testimony and the Ethics of Science Communication",
abstract = "Scientific expert testimony is crucial to public deliberation, but it is associated with many pitfalls. This article identifies one—namely, expert trespassing testimony—which may be characterized, crudely, as the phenomenon of experts testifying outside their domain of expertise. My agenda is to provide a more precise characterization of this phenomenon and consider its ramifications for the role of science in society. I argue that expert trespassing testimony is both epistemically problematic and morally problematic. Specifically, I will argue that scientific experts are subject to a particular obligation. Roughly, this is the obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of scientific expertise in certain contexts. Thus, I argue that scientists who possess expert knowledge are confronted with hard questions about when and how to testify and, therefore, that being a scientific expert comes with great responsibility. Consequently, I provide a concrete “expert guideline” according to which scientific experts, in certain contexts, face an obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of expertise. Furthermore, I consider a number of the conditions in which the guideline is waived or overridden. On this basis, I consider the broader aspects of the roles of scientific experts in a society with a high division of cognitive labor that calls for trust in scientific expert testimony.",
keywords = "Expertise, Science communication, Science ethics, Scientific testimony",
author = "Mikkel Gerken",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1007/s10838-018-9416-1",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "299–318",
journal = "Journal for General Philosophy of Science",
issn = "0925-4560",
publisher = "Heinemann",
number = "3",

}

Expert Trespassing Testimony and the Ethics of Science Communication. / Gerken, Mikkel.

In: Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol. 49, No. 3, 09.2018, p. 299–318.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expert Trespassing Testimony and the Ethics of Science Communication

AU - Gerken, Mikkel

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - Scientific expert testimony is crucial to public deliberation, but it is associated with many pitfalls. This article identifies one—namely, expert trespassing testimony—which may be characterized, crudely, as the phenomenon of experts testifying outside their domain of expertise. My agenda is to provide a more precise characterization of this phenomenon and consider its ramifications for the role of science in society. I argue that expert trespassing testimony is both epistemically problematic and morally problematic. Specifically, I will argue that scientific experts are subject to a particular obligation. Roughly, this is the obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of scientific expertise in certain contexts. Thus, I argue that scientists who possess expert knowledge are confronted with hard questions about when and how to testify and, therefore, that being a scientific expert comes with great responsibility. Consequently, I provide a concrete “expert guideline” according to which scientific experts, in certain contexts, face an obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of expertise. Furthermore, I consider a number of the conditions in which the guideline is waived or overridden. On this basis, I consider the broader aspects of the roles of scientific experts in a society with a high division of cognitive labor that calls for trust in scientific expert testimony.

AB - Scientific expert testimony is crucial to public deliberation, but it is associated with many pitfalls. This article identifies one—namely, expert trespassing testimony—which may be characterized, crudely, as the phenomenon of experts testifying outside their domain of expertise. My agenda is to provide a more precise characterization of this phenomenon and consider its ramifications for the role of science in society. I argue that expert trespassing testimony is both epistemically problematic and morally problematic. Specifically, I will argue that scientific experts are subject to a particular obligation. Roughly, this is the obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of scientific expertise in certain contexts. Thus, I argue that scientists who possess expert knowledge are confronted with hard questions about when and how to testify and, therefore, that being a scientific expert comes with great responsibility. Consequently, I provide a concrete “expert guideline” according to which scientific experts, in certain contexts, face an obligation to qualify their assertions when speaking outside their domain of expertise. Furthermore, I consider a number of the conditions in which the guideline is waived or overridden. On this basis, I consider the broader aspects of the roles of scientific experts in a society with a high division of cognitive labor that calls for trust in scientific expert testimony.

KW - Expertise

KW - Science communication

KW - Science ethics

KW - Scientific testimony

U2 - 10.1007/s10838-018-9416-1

DO - 10.1007/s10838-018-9416-1

M3 - Journal article

VL - 49

SP - 299

EP - 318

JO - Journal for General Philosophy of Science

JF - Journal for General Philosophy of Science

SN - 0925-4560

IS - 3

ER -