Choosing Expert Statistical Advice: Practical Costs and Epistemic Justification

Abstract

We discuss the role of practical costs in the epistemic justication of a novice choosing expert advice, taking as a case study the choice of an expert statistician by a lay politician. First, we rene Goldman's criteria for the assessment of this choice, showing how the costs of not being impartial impinge on the epistemic justication 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 justication.