1. Ian Reau
Period 4
13/12/11
Option 2: The Purpose of Expert Opinions
The search for knowledge and meaning of existence and reality has been a prevalent
theme that has confronted mankind throughout history. Since earliest of civilizations with
mankind, such of that of ancient Greece, philosophers such as Plato had pondered these
theories of knowledge revolving around those concerning reality and finding an absolute
truth. However this desire to know about existence and the search for knowledge was never
fully sated for mankind and is still being continued on into this current recent era with
philosophers such as Immanuel Kant who has his theories of knowledge tying in with his
view of human nature and how humans are subjective to special pleading among other things.
Both these examples are great philosophers who are often regarded by definition as experts in
their field of study being that of the theory of knowledge. However what makes a expert an
expert, is it merely their notable achievements that they make in their field or is it just
recognition from other individuals or figures of authorities which deem experts as experts.
Thus in the search for knowledge the opinions of experts are valuable in justifying our own
opinions, however other than the reason that experts are a good foundation for our own
opinions they are also flawed as well as these experts aren’t always right and have a limited
range in which their theories can apply to.
Although in the ultimate search for knowledge the opinions of experts are generally
reliable to an extent, reason being their basic fundamental ideas or beliefs is still a valuable
asset in justifying one’s own beliefs or ideas. This is because experts typically have reason or

2. evidence to support their theories that they establish which appeal to others as they provide a
greater sense of certainties than any other ways of knowing. Such examples can be seen most
prevalent in the subject of natural sciences with experts such as Charles Darwin in biology.
This structure of reasoning supported by evidence becoming more appealing theories can be
seen by Charles Darwin, this is because he held a belief that the origins of all life has
descended from a single common ancestor but diverged from their path through natural
selection and evolution. This was then supported by evidence in which he obtained through
his experiences on the Galapagos Island among other regions around the world in which he
discovered resemblances between different species having distinguishing traits but common
features on other areas. Then through the use of this evidence to support Charles Darwin’s
theory of evolution, society as a whole has become more accepting of this theory and
eventually utilizes it as one of the leading paradigms of biological sciences. This can then
lead to others individual in creating their own theories based upon the expert’s data, to either
enforce pre-existing theory or create different theories, due to the research that these experts
have placed into their studies. A direct example to this being Gregor Mendel’s theory of
inheritance being more readily accepted due to Darwins theory of evolution. Therefore it can
be seen that it’s not as much the opinions of experts that are valuable but their theories and
data that they have established and collected which create a bridge to further knowledge for
future scientists and researchers.
However, expert opinions do often seem very appealing normally due to just the fact
that many people or figures of authority approve of the opinion in which these experts
present, and also most expert opinions are not reliable in the sense that they may just very
well be wrong as many experts tend to have their theories disproven over the course of time.
Examples of a experts opinion becoming unreliable however begin to meld in with the ways
of knowing emotion, in which most individuals would deem the most unreliable of all the

3. ways of knowing. This is because emotions tends to cause many individuals to find a way to
fit the currently accepted theory or paradigm of that time, showing both a example of
confirmation bias and fear of punishment which will be explain in the following example.
Great theorists such as Isaac Newton too fell to the effect of emotion which hindered him
from finding true knowledge or absolute knowledge, since when he published his theories of
gravity and attractive forces his theory had gaps in it and thus he had concluded instead that
God to played a role with his theory showing how he found ways to mould the evidence and
data he found to conform with his own bias. Another Example of other great scientific
Theorists was Galileo who had to recant his heliocentric theories in fear of further
punishment by the church that had already placed him under house arrest. This shows how
theorist’s individual emotions interfere once again in the search for knowledge and absolute
truth as he was forced to give in on his theory which was support by justifications for one
with barely any at all due to a fear of punishment. Thus it is shown that most experts are not a
reliable source of knowledge as they are easily affected by their own emotions and thus easily
fall prey to confirmation bias or the bias of authority figures.
Lastly some experts theories are only applicable for the subject in which it was
created for, as most experts have a “limited range of competence” (lagemaat 34). This ties
closely with the way of knowing perception since perception basically states that our
knowledge is based on our personally experiences, thus if one only as experiences within the
subjects of science per say then that individuals theory can only be applied to science.
Examples of theorists who have a limited range of competence can be seen simply in Plato
whose strict subject field should only fall under philosophy. This is because his theories that
knowledge can only be justified true belief cannot meld with that of sciences. This is because
the main purpose of science is to find truth or the theory closest to reality. Thus this method
of finding knowledge is in adequate as having truth as a precursor to knowledge is

4. preposterous for scientists as no one can really ever know if there theory will always and
forever be true, and the last part of the knowledge is justified true belief system being belief
does not matter in science at all as it’s the justifications and evidence which lead to true
knowledge in the department of science. Another field in which does not apply to Plato’s
theory would be language. This is because in literature, all things are subjective to the
individual’s perception and their own experiences with life or the subject of the piece their
reading. This is because as in most literature there is no one true interpretation or truth, thus
as long as a individual can justify why they perceive what they perceive from a piece of
literature and believe it, by Plato’s definition that in itself is knowledge. However this cannot
be the case as their also be only one truth, also known as the absolute truth by Plato’s
definition, thus showing how perception too heavily influences a individuals bias in a certain
subject that it cannot be properly used in other subjects.
Therefore in the search for truth and knowledge the opinions of experts although tend
to be appeasing as they offer good justifications and reasons, they are too susceptible to
confirmation bias due to emotion and have a limited scope of competence due to perception.
However, many individuals still accept many expert opinions blindly without any hit of
skepticism, which in turns causes society to be trapped in a prison of consistency as many
people do choose not be skeptically and thus ultimately end up with a society who all end up
with common beliefs. This absurdity is also reflected in this very paper itself in which in
order to validate the reasons I have just stated in my paper, I need theories or concepts
created by these experts on philosophy in order to have a decent argument against it. Thus
showing once and for all, how our society today is so willingly to give into expert opinions
and are unwillingly to form their own ideas or theories based on their own justifications.