Mizrahi and Seidel: Experts in Confusion.

Martin David Hinton


In this paper I describe the apparent differences between the views of Mizrahi (2013) and Seidel (2014) on the strength of arguments from expert opinion. I show that most of Seidel's objections rely on an understanding of the words 'expert' and 'opinion' different from those which Mizrahi employs. I also discuss certain inconsistencies found in both papers over the use of these key terms. The paper concludes by noting that Mizrahi is right to suggest that evidence shows expert predictions to be unreliable, but Seidel is correct to observe that this finding should not be used to claim that expert opinion in general is not to be trusted.


Argumentation, Experts, Ad verecundiam, Mizrahi, Seidel

Full Text:


DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v35i4.4386

ISSN: 0824-2577