Trust in Expertise and Deflection of Counterevidence: A Bayesian Analysis
Type of Presentation
Poster Session
Location
University Library
Start Date
4-9-2026 11:30 AM
End Date
4-9-2026 12:45 PM
Description of Program
“I’ll leave that for the experts to address.” There is something reasonable yet unsatisfying about this reaction by nonexperts to counterevidence that undercuts expert recommendations. Is this an abdication of doxastic responsibility? Here I offer a Bayesian probabilistic analysis to differentiate modest nonexpert deflections of counterevidence from sweeping indefensible ones.
Abstract
“I’ll leave that for the experts to address.” There is something at once reasonable yet unsatisfying about this common reaction by trusting nonexperts when we encounter counterevidence that seems to undercut some expert recommendation. Consider for example public reactions to apparent flip-flopping by CDC public-health experts in their recommendations on mask usage in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. While experts themselves might engage this problem directly on its merits, for many trusting nonexperts the response is one of continued deference and deflection. Is this an abdication of intellectual responsibility and critical thinking? Does it make trusting experts rationally no better than conspiracy theorizing that, when confronted with counterevidence to some conspiratorial explanation, simply reaffirms “That’s just what they want you to think”?
Trust in Expertise and Deflection of Counterevidence: A Bayesian Analysis
University Library
“I’ll leave that for the experts to address.” There is something at once reasonable yet unsatisfying about this common reaction by trusting nonexperts when we encounter counterevidence that seems to undercut some expert recommendation. Consider for example public reactions to apparent flip-flopping by CDC public-health experts in their recommendations on mask usage in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. While experts themselves might engage this problem directly on its merits, for many trusting nonexperts the response is one of continued deference and deflection. Is this an abdication of intellectual responsibility and critical thinking? Does it make trusting experts rationally no better than conspiracy theorizing that, when confronted with counterevidence to some conspiratorial explanation, simply reaffirms “That’s just what they want you to think”?