Expertise and public policy: a conceptual guide

This paper seeks to provide a guide to better understand: what is expertise, how to determine who are the relevant experts where it comes to the technical aspects of public policy debates, and how to go about choosing between competing expert claims. Executive summary: In developing policy and assessing program effectiveness, policy makers are required to make decisions on complex issues in areas that involve significant public risks. In this context, policy makers are becoming more reliant on the advice of experts and the institution of expertise. Expert knowledge and advice in fields as diverse as science, engineering, the law and economics is required to assist policy makers in their deliberations on complex matters of public policy and to provide them with an authoritative basis for legitimate decision making. However, at the same time that reliance on expertise and the demands made of it are increasing, expert claims have never been subject to greater levels of questioning and criticism. This problem is compounded by the growing public demand that non-experts should be able to participate in debates over issues that impact on their lives. However their capacity to understand and contribute to the technical aspects of these debates may be either limited or non-existent. This paper provides a guide to assessing who is and who is not an expert in the technical aspects of public policy debates, by providing a framework of levels of expertise. It also notes the importance of identifying the specific fields of expertise relevant to the issue in question. The main focus is on scientific and technical areas, but the issues raised also apply in other domains. It then examines the problem of how non-experts can evaluate expert claims in complex, technical domains. The paper argues that, in the absence of the necessary technical expertise, the only way that non-experts are able to appraise expertise and expert claims is through the use of social expertise. This is expertise using everyday social judgements that enables them to determine who to believe when they are not in a position to judge what to believe. In this context, the paper suggests policy makers ask a series of questions: –      can I make sense of the arguments? –      which experts seems the more credible? –      who has the numbers on their side? –      are there any relevant interests or biases? And –      what are the experts’ track records? By identifying the strengths and limitations of each of these strategies, the paper provides guidance on how each might best be used. It also argues that using them in combination improves their strength and reliability. The role of those who can act as intermediaries between technical experts and non-experts is also examined. The paper makes clear that none of these strategies are without problems, but it postulates that a more systematic approach to how non-experts use social expertise might enhance their ability to become active rather than passive consumers of technical expertise

The Informal Logic of Mathematical Proof

Informal logic is a method of argument analysis which is complementary to that of formal logic, providing for the pragmatic treatment of features of argumentation which cannot be reduced to logical form. The central claim of this paper is that a more nuanced understanding of mathematical proof and discovery may be achieved by paying attention to the aspects of mathematical argumentation which can be captured by informal, rather than formal, logic. Two accounts of argumentation are considered: the pioneering work of Stephen Toulmin [The uses of argument, Cambridge University Press, 1958] and the more recent studies of Douglas Walton, [e.g. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument, University of Toronto Press, 1998]. The focus of both of these approaches has largely been restricted to natural language argumentation. However, Walton's method in particular provides a fruitful analysis of mathematical proof. He offers a contextual account of argumentational strategies, distinguishing a variety of different types of dialogue in which arguments may occur. This analysis represents many different fallacious or otherwise illicit arguments as the deployment of strategies which are sometimes admissible in contexts in which they are inadmissible. I argue that mathematical proofs are deployed in a greater variety of types of dialogue than has commonly been assumed. I proceed to show that many of the important philosophical and pedagogical problems of mathematical proof arise from a failure to make explicit the type of dialogue in which the proof is introduced.Comment: 14 pages, 1 figure, 3 tables. Forthcoming in Perspectives on Mathematical Practices: Proceedings of the Brussels PMP2002 Conference (Logic, Epistemology and the Unity of the Sciences Series), J. P. Van Bendegem & B. Van Kerkhove, edd. (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004

Offline and online data: on upgrading functional information to knowledge

This paper addresses the problem of upgrading functional information to knowledge. Functional information is defined as syntactically well-formed, meaningful and collectively opaque data. Its use in the formal epistemology of information theories is crucial to solve the debate on the veridical nature of information, and it represents the companion notion to standard strongly semantic information, defined as well-formed, meaningful and true data. The formal framework, on which the definitions are based, uses a contextual version of the verificationist principle of truth in order to connect functional to semantic information, avoiding Gettierization and decoupling from true informational contents. The upgrade operation from functional information uses the machinery of epistemic modalities in order to add data localization and accessibility as its main properties. We show in this way the conceptual worthiness of this notion for issues in contemporary epistemology debates, such as the explanation of knowledge process acquisition from information retrieval systems, and open data repositories

Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse

The goal of argumentation mining, an evolving research field in computational linguistics, is to design methods capable of analyzing people's argumentation. In this article, we go beyond the state of the art in several ways. (i) We deal with actual Web data and take up the challenges given by the variety of registers, multiple domains, and unrestricted noisy user-generated Web discourse. (ii) We bridge the gap between normative argumentation theories and argumentation phenomena encountered in actual data by adapting an argumentation model tested in an extensive annotation study. (iii) We create a new gold standard corpus (90k tokens in 340 documents) and experiment with several machine learning methods to identify argument components. We offer the data, source codes, and annotation guidelines to the community under free licenses. Our findings show that argumentation mining in user-generated Web discourse is a feasible but challenging task.Comment: Cite as: Habernal, I. & Gurevych, I. (2017). Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse. Computational Linguistics 43(1), pp. 125-17

Capturing and representing deliberation in participatory planning practices

In this paper we argue for the importance of capturing and representing deliberation in participatory planning practices. We discuss the concept of deliberation in planning theory, and argue for a paradigm that puts deliberation at the centre of public participation to planning decision. We argue that in order to enable effective participation, the normally ephemeral delib- eration process needs to be captured and represented so that the information and knowledge gathered during deliberation is visible for all, can be effectively traced, reused, and can actively influence planning decisions. To scaffold this we describe the integration of three technologies to create a collective project memory structured against five dimensions of participatory plan- ning processes: dialogical, social, spatial, temporal and causal. Based on several authentic par- ticipatory planning cases, we report that this supported deliberation across planning tasks, communication modes, time and environments. The coupled use of online and offline group- ware technologies created a more expressive and transparent participatory knowledge base than is possible with conventional media, and enhanced participatory planning by: supporting the effective capture and representation of deliberation processes and products; providing a rich picture of the social setting in which planning decision develops and supporting reflection in and on planning actions

The Argumentation Theory in Kalam in Maverannahr and Usage of its Practice Techniques in Discussions on the Websites of Uzbekistan

The article is dedicated to the historical prerequisites for the formation of the theory of argumentation in the works of representatives of the Kalam schools in Maverannahr in the 9th 13th centuries It is especially important to study the legacy of the Maturidian and Asharian Kalam when it comes to solving modern issues of argumentation and verification and conducting a religious examination in Uzbekistan which began a new stage in its histor