In this paper I will argue that there is an inductive and a non-inductive argument from position to know, and will characterise the latter as an argument from (epistemic) authority because of providing content-independent reasons. I will also argue that both types of argument should be doubt-preserving: testimony cannot justify a stronger cognitive attitude in the arguer than the expert herself expresses when she testifies. Failure to appreciate this point undercuts Mizrahi’s (2013) claim that arguments from expert opinion are weak.
Two Types of Argument from Position to Know
