Knowledge

Does an interested layperson have any business in evaluating or criticizing the arguments of specialists in complex academic fields? Are the intellectual efforts of laypeople (limited, perhaps, for those of working-class status to only a few hours a week) destined to result in nothing more than the dubious ends of personal enrichment or cultural appreciation? Would it make more sense for someone of merely average cognitive ability and with only meager academic credentials to spend his free time watching mindless sitcoms or reading the latest potboilers rather than attempting to engage with cutting-edge scholarship across a variety of disciplines? Is our layperson in some sense obligated to accept the arguments and claims of experts if he cannot find reason to doubt them?

Comments

Excellent question(s). I suggest that in some areas of historical inquiry, trusting the "cutting-edge experts" in philosophy makes a great deal of sense (though not always). So, when it comes to dating and reconstructing which of Plato's dialogues were early or late, or what is the best available translations of texts, and the tracing of influence (how many ideas of Hume's were novel), it seems quite reasonable to "trust the experts." I suggest, however, that trusting expert philosophers on history is tricky when it comes to issues in which one's philosophical convictions might color one's judgment. So, a philosopher who is disposed to distrust utilitarianism, might be led to judge that the reason why Moism in China failed was because of the inherent limitations of such an abstract form of ethical teaching, when in fact that was not the reason why Moism did not have a longer life span. Moreover, when it comes to philosophers making claims that impact our daily lives, it may be that they are no less biased, prejudiced, stubborn, and riddled with vanity and competitiveness than any of us. Now, in such cases I am strongly inclined to think such "philosophers" are not truly philosophers (Greek for: the love of wisdom). Is vanity and not questioning your own beliefs ever wise? Rather, it seems a wise person would want to be open to wisdom that may be available from both "professionals" (those who make a living thinking, teaching, writing, debating) and non-professionals. In some domains of philosophy (philosophy of mind, ethics, moral theory, philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of art), philosophers (and the community of philosophers) may be caught up in trends that blind them (us) to various values. So, it is more than simply possible, for a philosopher who is deeply hostile to religion for personal reasons, to be less than impartial in assessing the arguments (or evidence) for this or that religion.

I suggest that a really important reason for "laypersons" or "non-experts" to take up the practice of philosophy with passion and with the most amount of time you can spare is that you may see and respond to some position with greater insight or critical acumen than the "experts." Going further, it may be that your (technically "non-philosophical" background) in, say, child rearing or caring for a handicapped sister, gives you greater clarity in assessing a philosophy of education and public health. Besides, I think that the more people practice philosophy from all walks of life, the richer will be our culture and community.

Read another response by Charles Taliaferro

Read another response about Knowledge