Experts, Democracy, and Covid-19

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2022.84

Keywords:

Trust, COVID-19, Experts

Abstract

Two challenges have faced policymakers during the Covid-19 pandemic: First, they must determine the reliability of expert testimony in the face of uncertainty; second, they must determine the relevance of different kinds of expertise with regard to particular decisions. I argue that both these problems can be fruitfully analyzed through the lens of trust by introducing an in-depth case study of Iceland’s handling of the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. I contend that the problem of relevance highlights the limited appeal of a thoroughly technocratic society. Value judgments, best realized through democratic processes, are always lurking in the background.

References

Baier, Annette. 1986. “Trust and Antitrust.” Ethics 96, no. 2: 231–60. https://doi.org/10.1086/292745.

Bennett, Matthew. 2020. “Should I Do as I’m Told? Trust, Experts, and COVID-19.” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 30, no. 3–4: 243–63. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2020.0014.

Brennan, Jason. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Childress, James F. and Ruth Gaare Bernheim. 2008. “Public Health Ethics: Public Justification and Public Trust.” Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 51, no. 2: 158–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-008-0444-6.

Christiano, Tom. 2020. “Authority”. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/authority/.

Crosthwaite, Jan. 1995. “Moral Expertise: A Problem in the Professional Ethics of Professional Ethicists.” Bioethics 9, no. 5: 361–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.1995.tb00312.x.

D’Cruz, Jason. 2019. “Humble Trust.” Philosophical Studies 176, no. 4: 933–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1220-6.

De Cruz, Helen. 2020. “Believing to Belong: Addressing the Novice-Expert Problem in Polarized Scientific Communication.” Social Epistemology 34, no. 5: 440–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2020.1739778.

Dellsén, Finnur. 2018. “The Epistemic Value of Expert Autonomy.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 100, no. 2: 344–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12550.

Douglas, Heather. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Frances, Bryan and Jonathan Matheson. 2019. “Disagreement.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/disagreement/.

Gallup. 2021. Traust til stofnana og embætta 2021 (Trust towards institutions and public offices 2021). Survey on trust toward the Icelandic healthcare system. https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/04-Raduneytin/Heilbrigdisraduneytid/ymsar-skrar/4031845_Heilbrigdiskerfid_120321.pdf.

Garðarsdóttir, Ásthildur Gyða, Hörður Brynjar Halldórsson, Victor Karl Magnússon, and Vigdís Hafliðadóttir. 2021. Heimspekilegar áskóranir á farsóttartímum (Philosophical challenges in pandemic times). Reykjavík: Centre for Ethics, University of Iceland. https://sidfraedi.hi.is/files/2021-03/heimspekilegar_askoranir_a_farsottartimum_lokaskyrsla_11jan2021.pdf.

Goldman, Alvin I. 2001. “Experts: Which Ones Should You Trust?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63, no. 1: 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x.

Harvard School of Public Health. 2021. The Public’s Perspective on the United States Public Health System. https://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/94/2021/05/RWJF-Harvard-Report_FINAL-051321.pdf.

Hawley, Katherine. 2014. “Trust, Distrust and Commitment.” Noûs 48, no. 1: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12000.

———. 2015. “Trust and Distrust between Patient and Doctor.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 21, no. 5: 798–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12374.

Hempel, Carl G. 1965. “Science and Human Values.” In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: The Free Press, 81–96.

Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lackey, Jennifer. 2018. “Experts and Peer Disagreement.” In Knowledge, Belief, and God: New Insights in Religious Epistemology, edited by Matthew A. Benton, John Hawthorne, and Dani Rabinowitz, 228–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198798705.003.0012.

Longino, Helen E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McLeod, Carolyn. 2020. “Trust.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/trust/.

MMR (Market and Media Research). 2020. Kórónavíruskönnun (Coronavirus survey). Survey on trust toward the Icelandic Department of Civil Management in relation to the pandemic. Reykjavík: MMR. https://mmr.is/frettir/birtar-nieurstoeeur/820-afgerandi-traust-til-almannavarna-og-heilbrigdhisstofnana.

National Security Council of Iceland. 2020. Skýrsla vinnuhóps Þjóðaröryggisráðs um upplýsingaóreiðu og COVID-19 (Report by the task force of the National Security Council of Iceland on misinformation and COVID-19). Reykjavík: National Security Council of Iceland. https://www.stjornarradid.is/library/01--Frettatengt---myndir-og-skrar/FOR/Fylgiskjol-i-frett/Skyrsla_uppl.oreidacovid19_25.10.20.pdf.

Norheim, Ole F., Joelle M. Abi-Rached, Liam Kofi Bright, Kristine Bærøe, Octávio L.M. Ferraz, Siri Gloppen, and Alex Voorhoeve. 2021. “Difficult Trade-Offs in Response to COVID-19: The Case for Open and Inclusive Decision Making.” Nature Medicine 27: 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-01204-6.

Northcott, Robert. 2022. “Pandemic Modeling, Good and Bad.” Philosophy of Medicine 3, no. 1: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2022.79.

Nuffield Council of Bioethics. 2007. “Public Health: Ethical Issues.” London: Nuffield Council of Bioethics. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Public-health-ethical-issues.pdf.

———. 2020. “Ethical Considerations in Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic.” London: Nuffield Council of Bioethics. https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/assets/pdfs/Ethical-considerations-in-responding-to-the-COVID-19-pandemic.pdf.

Pamuk, Zeynep. 2021. “COVID-19 and the Paradox of Scientific Advice.” Perspectives on Politics 20, no. 2: 562–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592721001201.

Plato. 1987. Gorgias: Translated, with Introduction and Notes, by Donald J. Zeyl. Indianapolis: Hackett.

Popowicz, Dylan Mirek. 2021. “Doctor Knows Best: On the Epistemic Authority of the Medical Practitioner.” Philosophy of Medicine 2, no. 2: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2021.49.

Raz, Joseph. 1985. “Authority and Justification.” Philosophy Public Affairs 14, no. 1: 3–29. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265235.

———. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Scudellari, Megan. 2020. “How Iceland Hammered COVID with Science.” Nature 587, no. 7835: 536–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03284-3.

White, Lucie, Philippe van Basshuysen, and Mathias Frisch. 2022. “When Is Lockdown Justified?” Philosophy of Medicine 3, no. 1: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2022.85.

Zagzebski, Linda. 2012. Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Downloads

Published

2022-12-08

How to Cite

Magnússon, V. K. (2022). Experts, Democracy, and Covid-19. Philosophy of Medicine, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.5195/pom.2022.84

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2022)

Section

Philosophical Perspectives on Covid-19

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Victor Karl Magnússon

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. The Author retains copyright in the Work, where the term “Work” shall include all digital objects that may result in subsequent electronic publication or distribution.
  2. Upon acceptance of the Work, the author shall grant to the Publisher the right of first publication of the Work.
  3. The Author shall grant to the Publisher and its agents the nonexclusive perpetual right and license to publish, archive, and make accessible the Work in whole or in part in all forms of media now or hereafter known under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License or its equivalent, which, for the avoidance of doubt, allows others to copy, distribute, and transmit the Work under the following conditions:
    1. Attribution—other users must attribute the Work in the manner specified by the author as indicated on the journal Web site;
    with the understanding that the above condition can be waived with permission from the Author and that where the Work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
  4. The Author is able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the nonexclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the Work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), as long as there is provided in the document an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  5. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post online a prepublication manuscript (but not the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work) in institutional repositories or on their Websites prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. Any such posting made before acceptance and publication of the Work shall be updated upon publication to include a reference to the Publisher-assigned DOI (Digital Object Identifier) and a link to the online abstract for the final published Work in the Journal.
  6. Upon Publisher’s request, the Author agrees to furnish promptly to Publisher, at the Author’s own expense, written evidence of the permissions, licenses, and consents for use of third-party material included within the Work, except as determined by Publisher to be covered by the principles of Fair Use.
  7. The Author represents and warrants that:
    1. the Work is the Author’s original work;
    2. the Author has not transferred, and will not transfer, exclusive rights in the Work to any third party;
    3. the Work is not pending review or under consideration by another publisher;
    4. the Work has not previously been published;
    5. the Work contains no misrepresentation or infringement of the Work or property of other authors or third parties; and
    6. the Work contains no libel, invasion of privacy, or other unlawful matter.
  8. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold Publisher harmless from Author’s breach of the representations and warranties contained in Paragraph 6 above, as well as any claim or proceeding relating to Publisher’s use and publication of any content contained in the Work, including third-party content.
  9. The Author agrees to digitally sign the Publisher’s final formatted PDF version of the Work.