Notes Chapter 6 Evidence and Experts The probability of becoming an instant expert is pretty and experts are not and never have been but neither are they clueless Nonexperts can come to know a lot about some complex issues if they respect evidence and critical thinking And the insight and know how of experts when approached critically and used wisely can help us live more intelligently and avoid An expert is someone who is more in a particular subject area or field than most others are Experts in professions and fields of knowledge provide us with for believing a claim because in their specialty areas they are more likely to be right than we are They are more likely to be right because 1 and 2 Commonsense Principles of Critical Thinking G ood critical thinkers are careful about expert opinion guiding their use of experts by some commonsense principles The most basic principle is this If a claim conflicts Background information is Some examples of background information are If a claim conflicts with our background information we have good reason to it We need to keep in mind that although our background information is generally trustworthy it is not W hat should we believe about a claim that is not quite dubious enough to summarily discard yet not worthy of complete acceptance We should our belief to the Implicit in all of the foregoing is a principle already mentioned but it deserves to be repeated because it s so often ignored It s not reasonable to believe a claim when there is for doing so W hen a claim runs counter to a consensus among experts this principle holds If a claim conflicts with expert opinion we have good reason to it This tenet follows from our definition of experts If they really are more likely to be than nonexperts about claims in their field then any claim that conflicts with expert opinion is at least initially dubious Here s the companion principle When the experts about a claim we have good reason to it But when is a claim considered in dispute among experts It s in dispute when numbers of experts with one another but not when a mere of dissidents disagree with almost all of the others Explain in your own words what fallacious appeal to authority is Judging Experts To be considered an expert someone must have shown that he or she has the knowledge judgment and competence required in a particular field What are the indicators that someone has this essential kind of expertise There are several that provide clues to someone s ability but do not guarantee the possession of true expertise In most professional fields the following two indicators are considered minimal prerequisites for being considered an expert 1 2 But unfortunately people can have the requisite education and experience and still not know what they re talking about in the field in question Two additional indicators though are more revealing 1 2 These two indicators are more helpful because they are very likely to be correlated with the intellectual qualities expected in true experts There are of course many other possible reasons to doubt the opinion of experts Any blatant violation of the critical thinking principles discussed in this text for example would give us good reason to question an authority s reliability Among the more common tip offs of dubious authority are these list at least three 1 2 3 Experts and Personal Experience C an we trust personal experience to reveal the truth It s reasonable to accept the evidence provided by experience only if there s no good reason to it List below the common impairments discussed in the text Though there is not space to describe them be sure you know what each involves and how to spot them 1 2 3