Misplaced Trust in Expertise: Pseudo-Experts and Unreliable Experts

The persistence of scientific misconceptions is often attributed to a decline in trust in experts. Against this simplistic picture, we emphasise that misplaced trust in expertise plays a crucial role in sustaining such misconceptions: even laypeople actively seeking expert guidance may nonetheless place their trust in unreliable sources. This paper identifies two main kinds of ’epistemic traps’ that are relevant to this phenomenon. In addition to fake experts who flaunt competence they lack (like pseudo-experts and pseudo-scientists), we emphasise the importance of unreliable experts who possess relevant credentials but systematically offer unreliable testimony. The resulting picture clashes with the commonplace idea that laypeople bear significant epistemic blame for endorsing misconceptions. Even responsible agents can be misled by unreliable experts who display legitimate credentials: the less evident the source’s unreliability, the less responsible is the agent for being misled.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Social Epistemology
Published
2025-06-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2025.2491104
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
86.33
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Misplaced Trust in Expertise: Pseudo-Experts and Unreliable Experts

Neri Marsili, Michel Croce
5 citations
Social Epistemology
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
86.33
article

Misplaced Trust in Expertise: Pseudo-Experts and Unreliable Experts

Neri Marsili, Michel Croce
article en
5 citations

Abstract

The persistence of scientific misconceptions is often attributed to a decline in trust in experts. Against this simplistic picture, we emphasise that misplaced trust in expertise plays a crucial role in sustaining such misconceptions: even laypeople actively seeking expert guidance may nonetheless place their trust in unreliable sources. This paper identifies two main kinds of ’epistemic traps’ that are relevant to this phenomenon. In addition to fake experts who flaunt competence they lack (like pseudo-experts and pseudo-scientists), we emphasise the importance of unreliable experts who possess relevant credentials but systematically offer unreliable testimony. The resulting picture clashes with the commonplace idea that laypeople bear significant epistemic blame for endorsing misconceptions. Even responsible agents can be misled by unreliable experts who display legitimate credentials: the less evident the source’s unreliability, the less responsible is the agent for being misled.

Social EpistemologyVol. 39(6)
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (ES), University of Genoa (IT)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
86.33
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.