The Legitimacy of Pseudo‐Expert Discourse in the Public Sphere

Abstract

This article examines the role of expertise in public debate, specifically the ways in which expertise can be mimicked and deployed as "pseudo-expert discourse" to generate legitimacy for views that have otherwise been discredited. The article argues that pseudo-expert discourse having a clear public health or safety impact should be regulated. There have been some attempts to legally regulate this speech through various means; however, these attempts at regulation have been met with fierce resistance, because of free-speech concerns. The article suggests that these appeals to free speech in the context of pseudo-expert discourse are both misguided and misplaced. Moreover, because speakers with the relevant expertise or perceived expertise are able to secure uptake of their views, they have a moral responsibility to not deceive or mislead audiences, and may also have various legal responsibilities.

Free but fake speech: When giving primacy to the source decreases misinformation sharing on social media

“…Thirdly, legitimacy is evoked through the narration of the story. During the narration, so‐called “Pseudo‐experts” present their arguments making false claims, seeking legitimacy by falsely pretending to be an expert and/or defending their arguments with misleading and deceptive evidence (Sorial, 2017).…”

Pseudoexpertise: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis

“…S can provide such help by imparting to the layperson (or other client) his/her distinctive knowledge or skills. (Goldman, 2018, p. 4) Defining experts by their function (or role) presents an additional advantage: it stresses the fact that experts have duties toward the people they are supposed to help, and thus must comply with certain norms (Sorial, 2017). Indeed, it is always possible for something that has a function to malfunction, i.e., to fail to fulfill this function.…”

“…More recently, Sorial (2017) investigated the role of “pseudo-expertise discourse” in “denialism” (specifically, the attempt at giving the appearance of a legitimate scientific debate where none exists). She focuses on the rhetorical uses of mimicking strategies by pseudoexperts, that is, how they attempt to pass as experts.…”