Expert identification for ethics expertise informed by feminist epistemology—Using awareness of biases and situated ignorance as an indicator of trustworthiness. Gauckler, C. Bioethics, 37(6):523 – 532, 2023. Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc Type: Article![Expert identification for ethics expertise informed by feminist epistemology—Using awareness of biases and situated ignorance as an indicator of trustworthiness [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex The notion of moral expertise poses a variety of challenges concerning both the question of existence of such experts and their identification by laypeople. I argue for a view of ethics expertise, based on moral understanding instead of on moral knowledge, that is less robust than genuine moral expertise and that does not rely on deference to testimony. I propose identification criteria that focus mainly on the awareness and communication of implicit biases and situated ignorance. According to the account of ethics expertise presented in this paper, the expert's testimony is not an epistemic reason for the layperson's belief, but merely an epistemic influence. The epistemic reasons for the layperson's belief are largely independent from the expert. But there is still some epistemic risk involved in the proposed method of knowledge transfer, and therefore criteria for the identification of a trustworthy expert are necessary. The risk involved in knowledge transfer can be both due to willful manipulation and due to the expert's implicit biases and situated ignorance. While willful manipulation cannot really be avoided, the influence from biases and ignorance can be minimized. I argue that the best way to do this is if the expert is aware of their own biases and ignorance and communicates them. Combined with evidence of the expert's education in moral philosophy and experience with the topic in question, this gives the layperson the best chance to identify someone who can really help them consider all relevant aspects of a situation and come to a better justified decision. © 2022 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
@article{gauckler_expert_2023,
title = {Expert identification for ethics expertise informed by feminist epistemology—{Using} awareness of biases and situated ignorance as an indicator of trustworthiness},
volume = {37},
issn = {02699702},
url = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85135224064&doi=10.1111%2fbioe.13082&partnerID=40&md5=591b269b0abf47090c33d262595ff72a},
doi = {10.1111/bioe.13082},
abstract = {The notion of moral expertise poses a variety of challenges concerning both the question of existence of such experts and their identification by laypeople. I argue for a view of ethics expertise, based on moral understanding instead of on moral knowledge, that is less robust than genuine moral expertise and that does not rely on deference to testimony. I propose identification criteria that focus mainly on the awareness and communication of implicit biases and situated ignorance. According to the account of ethics expertise presented in this paper, the expert's testimony is not an epistemic reason for the layperson's belief, but merely an epistemic influence. The epistemic reasons for the layperson's belief are largely independent from the expert. But there is still some epistemic risk involved in the proposed method of knowledge transfer, and therefore criteria for the identification of a trustworthy expert are necessary. The risk involved in knowledge transfer can be both due to willful manipulation and due to the expert's implicit biases and situated ignorance. While willful manipulation cannot really be avoided, the influence from biases and ignorance can be minimized. I argue that the best way to do this is if the expert is aware of their own biases and ignorance and communicates them. Combined with evidence of the expert's education in moral philosophy and experience with the topic in question, this gives the layperson the best chance to identify someone who can really help them consider all relevant aspects of a situation and come to a better justified decision. © 2022 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley \& Sons Ltd.},
language = {English},
number = {6},
journal = {Bioethics},
author = {Gauckler, Charlotte},
year = {2023},
pmid = {35920062},
note = {Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc
Type: Article},
keywords = {Bias, Feminism, Humans, Knowledge, Morals, Philosophy, article, awareness, education, epistemology, ethics, feminism, human, human experiment, implicit bias, knowledge, layperson, morality, philosophy, statistical bias, witness},
pages = {523 -- 532},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"Czm75RcYNhAsDy4No","bibbaseid":"gauckler-expertidentificationforethicsexpertiseinformedbyfeministepistemologyusingawarenessofbiasesandsituatedignoranceasanindicatoroftrustworthiness-2023","author_short":["Gauckler, C."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Expert identification for ethics expertise informed by feminist epistemology—Using awareness of biases and situated ignorance as an indicator of trustworthiness","volume":"37","issn":"02699702","url":"https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85135224064&doi=10.1111%2fbioe.13082&partnerID=40&md5=591b269b0abf47090c33d262595ff72a","doi":"10.1111/bioe.13082","abstract":"The notion of moral expertise poses a variety of challenges concerning both the question of existence of such experts and their identification by laypeople. I argue for a view of ethics expertise, based on moral understanding instead of on moral knowledge, that is less robust than genuine moral expertise and that does not rely on deference to testimony. I propose identification criteria that focus mainly on the awareness and communication of implicit biases and situated ignorance. According to the account of ethics expertise presented in this paper, the expert's testimony is not an epistemic reason for the layperson's belief, but merely an epistemic influence. The epistemic reasons for the layperson's belief are largely independent from the expert. But there is still some epistemic risk involved in the proposed method of knowledge transfer, and therefore criteria for the identification of a trustworthy expert are necessary. The risk involved in knowledge transfer can be both due to willful manipulation and due to the expert's implicit biases and situated ignorance. While willful manipulation cannot really be avoided, the influence from biases and ignorance can be minimized. I argue that the best way to do this is if the expert is aware of their own biases and ignorance and communicates them. Combined with evidence of the expert's education in moral philosophy and experience with the topic in question, this gives the layperson the best chance to identify someone who can really help them consider all relevant aspects of a situation and come to a better justified decision. © 2022 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.","language":"English","number":"6","journal":"Bioethics","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Gauckler"],"firstnames":["Charlotte"],"suffixes":[]}],"year":"2023","pmid":"35920062","note":"Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc Type: Article","keywords":"Bias, Feminism, Humans, Knowledge, Morals, Philosophy, article, awareness, education, epistemology, ethics, feminism, human, human experiment, implicit bias, knowledge, layperson, morality, philosophy, statistical bias, witness","pages":"523 – 532","bibtex":"@article{gauckler_expert_2023,\n\ttitle = {Expert identification for ethics expertise informed by feminist epistemology—{Using} awareness of biases and situated ignorance as an indicator of trustworthiness},\n\tvolume = {37},\n\tissn = {02699702},\n\turl = {https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85135224064&doi=10.1111%2fbioe.13082&partnerID=40&md5=591b269b0abf47090c33d262595ff72a},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/bioe.13082},\n\tabstract = {The notion of moral expertise poses a variety of challenges concerning both the question of existence of such experts and their identification by laypeople. I argue for a view of ethics expertise, based on moral understanding instead of on moral knowledge, that is less robust than genuine moral expertise and that does not rely on deference to testimony. I propose identification criteria that focus mainly on the awareness and communication of implicit biases and situated ignorance. According to the account of ethics expertise presented in this paper, the expert's testimony is not an epistemic reason for the layperson's belief, but merely an epistemic influence. The epistemic reasons for the layperson's belief are largely independent from the expert. But there is still some epistemic risk involved in the proposed method of knowledge transfer, and therefore criteria for the identification of a trustworthy expert are necessary. The risk involved in knowledge transfer can be both due to willful manipulation and due to the expert's implicit biases and situated ignorance. While willful manipulation cannot really be avoided, the influence from biases and ignorance can be minimized. I argue that the best way to do this is if the expert is aware of their own biases and ignorance and communicates them. Combined with evidence of the expert's education in moral philosophy and experience with the topic in question, this gives the layperson the best chance to identify someone who can really help them consider all relevant aspects of a situation and come to a better justified decision. © 2022 The Authors. Bioethics published by John Wiley \\& Sons Ltd.},\n\tlanguage = {English},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tjournal = {Bioethics},\n\tauthor = {Gauckler, Charlotte},\n\tyear = {2023},\n\tpmid = {35920062},\n\tnote = {Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc\nType: Article},\n\tkeywords = {Bias, Feminism, Humans, Knowledge, Morals, Philosophy, article, awareness, education, epistemology, ethics, feminism, human, human experiment, implicit bias, knowledge, layperson, morality, philosophy, statistical bias, witness},\n\tpages = {523 -- 532},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Gauckler, C."],"key":"gauckler_expert_2023","id":"gauckler_expert_2023","bibbaseid":"gauckler-expertidentificationforethicsexpertiseinformedbyfeministepistemologyusingawarenessofbiasesandsituatedignoranceasanindicatoroftrustworthiness-2023","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85135224064&doi=10.1111%2fbioe.13082&partnerID=40&md5=591b269b0abf47090c33d262595ff72a"},"keyword":["Bias","Feminism","Humans","Knowledge","Morals","Philosophy","article","awareness","education","epistemology","ethics","feminism","human","human experiment","implicit bias","knowledge","layperson","morality","philosophy","statistical bias","witness"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7","5XkfmA9xajmKjWGio"],"keywords":["bias","feminism","humans","knowledge","morals","philosophy","article","awareness","education","epistemology","ethics","feminism","human","human experiment","implicit bias","knowledge","layperson","morality","philosophy","statistical bias","witness"],"search_terms":["expert","identification","ethics","expertise","informed","feminist","epistemology","using","awareness","biases","situated","ignorance","indicator","trustworthiness","gauckler"],"title":"Expert identification for ethics expertise informed by feminist epistemology—Using awareness of biases and situated ignorance as an indicator of trustworthiness","year":2023}