Pseudoexpertise: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis

Abstract

Some people publicly pretend to be experts while not being ones. They are pseudoexperts, and their presence seems to be ubiquitous in the current cultural landscape. This manuscript explores the nature and mechanisms of pseudoexpertise. We first provide a conceptual analysis of pseudoexperts based on prototypical cases of pseudoexpertise and recent philosophical work on the concept of expertise. This allows us to propose a definition that captures real-world cases of pseudoexpertise, distinguishes it from related but different concepts such as pseudoscience, and highlights what is wrong with pseudoexpertise. Next, based on this conceptual analysis, we propose a framework for further research on pseudoexpertise, built on relevant empirical and theoretical approaches to cultural cognition. We provide exploratory answers to three questions: why is there pseudoexpertise at all; how can pseudoexperts be successful despite not being experts; and what becomes of pseudoexperts in the long run. Together, these conceptual and theoretical approaches to pseudoexpertise draw a preliminary framework from which to approach the very troubling problem posed by persons usurping the capacities and reputations of genuine experts.

Neuromyths and knowledge about intellectual giftedness in a highly educated multilingual country

“…As research on giftedness and neuroscience are sensitive due to ethics consideration (Gray and Thompson, 2004), it also seems capital that scientists working on (gifted) learners share their expertise more systematically and broadly. This could help to block biased points of view on giftedness and limit pseudo-expertise (Fuhrer et al, 2021) with attractive or simplistic speech on giftedness. To facilitate that point, Brown and colleagues proposed several solutions such as having a formal structure to disseminate quality information about giftedness and organize lecture for the lay audience (Brown et al, 2020).…”

Challenging Authority with Argumentation: The Pragmatics of Arguments from and to Authority

“…Apart from non-experts' own understanding of the topic, this mix includes means that they have to reasonably assess the expertise of experts, without becoming experts themselves-i.e., they can verify experts' institutional credentials, check if there are particular interests biasing what they say, compare their past predictions with what actually happened, or see how experts fare in public discussions with other experts (Goldman 2001(Goldman , 2018cf. Collins and Weinel 2011;Fuhrer et al 2021;Goodwin 2011). 16 On such a view, authority is an ubiquitous but also tamed phenomenon of human rationality.…”

“…Goldman's (2001) argument removes the evaluation on substantive grounds premise, thus avoiding the paradox. See Fuhrer et al (2021) and Moldovan (2022) for further discussion. 17…”

“…See also Croce (2019) and Scholz (2018). 25 See Croce (2019); Fuhrer et al (2021); Goldman (2018); Moldovan (2022); Scholz (2018) for a recent discussion "on what it takes to be an expert".…”

(Des)infodemia: lecciones de la crisis de la covid-19

“…COVID-19, LA PANDEMIA PERFECTA PARA CONSPIRAR La mentira política no es la única que se expande por la Red. La salud es un área muy productiva y lucrativa para los fabricantes de mentiras virales, sabedores de que es uno de los temas que más preocupan a los ciudadanos y que más consultas e interés suscitan en Internet, donde muchos contenidos son de dudosa o nula calidad y fiabilidad(Daraz, 2019), desde búsquedas en Google, hasta el consumo de vídeos en plataformas como YouTube, pasando por una abrumadora presencia de pseudoexpertos y pseudocientíficos que propagan desinformación, peligrosos consejos, opiniones sesgadas y narrativas falsas en medios tradicionales, en redes sociales y en otras plataformas de contenidos en Internet (López-Cantos y Millán-Yeste, 2018;Naeem et al, 2020;Fuhrer et al, 2021), generando un estado de pseudoconocimiento individual y colectivo(Introne et al, 2018).…”