TRUSTING EXPERTS: TRUST, TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE

The main aim of my paper is to analyze whether experts have a distinctive testimonial status in society, or whether an expert's testimony requires considerable epistemic deference (expertism). I will try to argue that no matter how reliable a speaker is, this cannot in itself make it rationally acceptable for a hearer to accept their report without assessment of their trustworthiness. However, I admit that standing policy about an expert's trustworthiness, and the social climate concerning experts, which includes sophisticated social constraints in terms of the possibility that experts have deceived us systematically, makes a scenario of deceit and incompetence seem far less probable. Consequently, I will conclude that evidential standards in favour of expert's testimony are less demanded and that they are attainable for ordinary hearers.