Abstract
Recently, social epistemologists have sought to establish what the governing epistemic relationship should be between novices and experts. In this article, the author argues for, and expands upon, Helen De Cruz’s expert-as-teacher model. For although this model is vulnerable to significant challenges, the author proposes that a specifically extended version can sufficiently overcome these challenges (call this the “extended-expert-as-teacher” model, or the “EEAT” model). First, the author shows the respective weaknesses of three influential models in the literature. Then, he argues the expert-as-teacher model can overcome its weaknesses by adding what he calls the “Authority Clause”, “Advisor Clause”, and “Ex Post Facto Clause” of the EEAT model. After developing a robust account of these clauses, the author entertains three major objections. First, he responds to the charge that the EEAT model is little better than the expert-as-authority model. Second, he responds to a double-counting objection. Lastly, he responds to a pragmatic objection from complexity.
Radiational tides: their double-counting in storm surge forecasts and contribution to the Highest Astronomical Tide