Loading...
- Type of Document: M.Sc. Thesis
- Language: Farsi
- Document No: 56161 (42)
- University: Sharif University of Technology
- Department: Philosophy of Science
- Advisor(s): Taheri, Ali
- Abstract:
- The complexity of today's world has led us to the point where we will have problems in the intellectual and practical fields without relying on the testimony of experts. Maybe if we could measure the validity of the information by our own knowledge, we would definitely choose this option. But social life has made us rely on others to get the beliefs we need. We consider most of the beliefs we acquire in school, universities, in science books, news, debates and television documentaries to be examples of knowledge. We also claim to know a set of beliefs presented to us by experts. We consider experts as reliable people and we rely on them. In the meantime, we know that we have no other reason to defend our beliefs than relying on the opinion of experts. But is this reason enough to justify our beliefs? Can the beliefs obtained by relying on the opinion of experts be justified and considered as an example of knowledge? By what criteria can we know who is an expert? How can we arbitrate disagreements among experts? Basically, who is an expert and what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the expertise? In this research, I will first deal with the issue of the nature of an expert and what it is, and I will show how the definition based on understanding can cover the nature of expertise well compared to its alternative definitions. Then, I describe the issue of justification based on expert testimony and try to defend the point of view of non-reductionism, and in the final part, I explain the criteria for expert recognition by non-experts, as well as the factors of disagreement between experts
- Keywords:
- Epistemology ; Justification ; Trust ; Expertise Epistemology ; Disagreement ; Expert Testimony ; Social Epistemology
- محتواي کتاب
- view