Arguments from Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias

Mizrahi, Moti

doi:10.1007/s10503-017-9434-x

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For this update, a stakeholder group with allergists, dermatologists, pediatricians, epidemiologists, and immunologists, developed the review protocol and made an open invitation to SLAAI members to participate. 21 Subsequently, those members who correctly performed the protocol tasks and writing the guide were included in the staff.…”

Section: Staff Conformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review about 10 interventions in dermatitis. A document from the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology

Sánchez

Sánchez²,

Macías-Weinmann

et al. 2019

RAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (SLAAI) conducted a systematic search in the Medline and LILACS' database in order to get articles linked to 10 current questions about dermatitis. The assessment of the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendations was made through the GRADE system. The completeness and transparency of the recommendations for this clinical guide were assessed with the AGREE Reports Verification Checklist. The final document was shared with physicians, allergists, dermatologists, and pediatricians, and with patients and academic institutions such as universities and medical scientific societies for external assessment. According to the review, clinical scales should be used to measure the severity of the dermatitis, and some interventions such as the use of probiotics may benefit the patient; nevertheless, more studies are required before this management option can be used in the everyday practice. Other interventions such as dietary restrictions and the use of antihistamines seem to be well-founded only in particular cases and they should not be a general recommendation for all patients. This practical guide presents recommendations for the treatment of atopic dermatitis; these recommendations can be helpful for medical staff, patients, and health systems.

show abstract

Section: Staff Conformationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review about 10 interventions in dermatitis. A document from the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology

Sánchez

Sánchez²,

Macías-Weinmann

et al. 2019

RAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…I have argued that, rather than take it for granted, we need a justification for it. A justification for "the background norm of respect for expertise" is especially urgent in light of evidence from studies on expertise suggesting that expert opinion is not as reliable as we might think (Mizrahi 2013a;2016a) and that expert judgments are susceptible to pretty much the same cognitive biases that novice judgments are susceptible to (Mizrahi 2018).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

You Will Respect My Authoritah!? A Reply to Botting

Mizrahi

2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a paper (Mizrahi 2013a) and a reply to critics (Mizrahi 2016a) published in Informal Logic, I argue that arguments from expert opinion are weak arguments. To appeal to expert opinion is to take an expert’s judgment that p is the case as (defeasible) evidence for p. Such appeals to expert opinion are weak, I argue, because the fact that an expert judges that p does not make it significantly more likely that p is true or probable, as evidence from empirical studies on expert performance suggests (Mizrahi 2016a, pp. 246-247). Unlike other critics of this argument (e.g., Seidel 2014 and Walton 2014), who take issue with the empirical evidence on expert performance, David Botting (2018) says that he wants to take issue with the premise that reliability is a necessary condition for the strength of appeals to expert opinion. I respond to Botting’s objections and argue that they miss their intended target. I also argue that his attempt to show that arguments from expert opinion are strong is unsuccessful.

show abstract

“…The objects we have called warranting devices are obvious candidates for disestablishment, either because experience in their use exposes an unnoticed problem or because some new invention obsolesces what was previously the best-known way to reach a conclusion in a given domain. But even familiar presumptive reasoning schemes, like Argument from Expert Opinion, can be the target of a warrant-disestablishing argument; such an argument would focus on new reasons to doubt the reliability of the formerly trusted scheme, as in Mizrahi's recent reexamination of trust in experts [12,13]. For computational modeling, interesting challenges surround the process by which arguers maintain a repertoire of forms over time through additions, transformations, and even removals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science

Schneider

Jackson

2018

AAC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use.

show abstract

Arguments from Expert Opinion and Persistent Bias

Cited by 17 publications

References 68 publications

Systematic review about 10 interventions in dermatitis. A document from the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology

Systematic review about 10 interventions in dermatitis. A document from the Latin American Society of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology

You Will Respect My Authoritah!? A Reply to Botting

Modeling the invention of a new inference rule: The case of ‘Randomized Clinical Trial’ as an argument scheme for medical science

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About