Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What is an expert?

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Experts play an important role in society, but there has been little investigation about the nature of expertise. I argue that there are two kinds of experts: those whose expertise is a function of what theyknow (epistemic expertise), or what theydo (performative expertise). Epistemic expertise is the capacity to provide strong justifications for a range of propositions in a domain, while performative expertise is the capacity to perform a skill well according to the rules and virtues of a practice. Both epistemic and performative experts may legitimately disagree with one another, and the two senses are conceptually and logically distinct.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fleck L.Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. [Trenn TJ, Merton RK, eds. Bradley F, Trenn TJ, transl]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tong R.Ethics in Policy Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Purtilo R. Ethics consultations in the hospital.N Engl J Med 1984;311:983–6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Arras JD, Murray TH. In defence of clinical bioethics.J Med Ethics 1982;8:122–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Macklin R.Mortal Choices: Bioethics in Today's World. New York: Pantheon Books, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Churchill LR, Cross AW. Moralist, technician, sophist, teacher/learner: reflections on the ethicist in the clinical setting.Theor Med 1986;7:3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Weinstein BD.The Possibility of Ethical Expertise. [Dissertation]. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  8. De George RT.The Nature and Limits of Authority. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ryle G.The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson House, 1949.

    Google Scholar 

  10. O'Connor DJ, Carr B.Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sacks O.The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales. New York: Summit Books, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Caplan AL. Moral experts and moral expertise: do either exist? In: Hoffmaster B, Freedman B, Fraser G, eds.Clinical Ethics: Theory and Practice. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1989:59–87.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Aristotle.Nicomachean Ethics. [Ostwald M, transl]. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gettier EL. Is justified true belief knowledge?Analysis 1963;23:121–3.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tivnan E. Jeremy Rifkin just says no.New York Times Magazine 1988 Oct 16:38–40,42,44,46.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Torrey EF. Correspondence.The Atlantic 1989 Jan:9.

  17. Bennet WI. Overactive machinery.New York Times Magazine 1989 May 7th:59–60.

  18. Plato.The Republic. [Grube GMA, transl]. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ryan TJ, Flessas AP. Coronary artery disease. In: Wilkins RW, Levinsky NG, eds.Medicine: Essentials of Clinical Practice. 3rd ed. Boston: Little, Brown, 1983:256–69.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Miller D.Ophthalmology: The Essentials. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Helmer O, Rescher N. On the epistemology of the inexact sciences.Management Science 1959;6:25–52.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Woods J, Walton D.Argumentum ad verecundiam. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1974;7:135–53.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Benston ML. Questioning authority: feminism and scientific experts.Resources for Feminist Research 1986;15:71–3.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Hubbard R. Science, facts, and feminism.Hypatia 1988;3:5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Imber B, Tuana N. Feminist perspectives on science.Hypatia 1988;3:139–44.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Overfield K. Dirty fingers, grime and slag heaps: purity and the scientific ethic. In: Spender D, ed.Men's Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the Academic Disciplines. Oxford: The Pergamon Press, 1981:237–48.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Horribin DF. The Valium and breast cancer affair: lessons relating to the involvement of women in health care research and policy.International Journal of Women's Studies 1981;4:19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Namenwirth M. Science seen through a feminist prism. In: Bleier R, ed.Feminist Approaches to Science. New York: Pergamon Press, 1986:18–41.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ruth S. Methodocracy, misogyny and bad faith: the response in philosophy. In: Spender D, ed.Men's Studies Modified: The Impact of Feminism on the Academic Disciplines. Oxford: The Pergamon Press, 1981:43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Levy-LeBlond JM. Ideology of/in contemporary physics. In: Rose H, Rose S, eds.Ideology of/in the Natural Sciences. Boston: GK Hall, 1976:277–352.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Center for Health Ethics and Law, West Virginia University, 1354 Health Sciences North, 26506, Morgantown, WV, USA

    Bruce D. Weinstein

Authors
  1. Bruce D. Weinstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weinstein, B.D. What is an expert?. Theoretical Medicine 14, 57–73 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993988

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00993988

Key words

Search

Navigation