Mizrahi and Seidel: Experts in Confusion

Abstract

In his (2013) paper Moti Mizrahi denies the reliability of expert opinion and thus claims that arguments which appeal to expert opinion are weak. Marcus Seidel (2014) responds by rejecting the relevance of Mizrahi's evidence, and his understanding of the terms 'expert' and 'opinion'. This paper examines the confusion which results as Seidel continues to argue at cross-purposes with Mizrahi's claims, and seeks to learn from it to highlight the areas of ambiguity in the debate which would need to be clarified in a better assessment of the argumentative weight of appeals to expertise.