Choosing expert statistical advice: practical costs and epistemic justification

We discuss the role of practical costs in the epistemic justification of a novice choosing expert advice, taking as a case study the choice of an expert statistician by a lay politician. First, we refine Goldman’s criteria for the assessment of this choice, showing how the costs of not being imparti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: González de Prado Salas, Javier, Teira Serrano, David
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Fecha de publicación:2024
País:España
Institución:Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
Repositorio:e-spacio. Repositorio Institucional de la UNED
Idioma:inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:e-spacio.uned.es:20.500.14468/19408
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14468/19408
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:experts, epistemic justification, practical costs
Descripción
Sumario:We discuss the role of practical costs in the epistemic justification of a novice choosing expert advice, taking as a case study the choice of an expert statistician by a lay politician. First, we refine Goldman’s criteria for the assessment of this choice, showing how the costs of not being impartial impinge on the epistemic justification of the different actors involved in the choice. Then, drawing on two case studies, we discuss in which institutional setting the costs of partiality can play an epistemic role. This way we intend to show how the sociological explanation of the choice of experts can incorporate its epistemic justification.