Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Nov 11:12:732666.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.732666. eCollection 2021.

Pseudoexpertise: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis

Affiliations

Pseudoexpertise: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis

Joffrey Fuhrer et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Some people publicly pretend to be experts while not being ones. They are pseudoexperts, and their presence seems to be ubiquitous in the current cultural landscape. This manuscript explores the nature and mechanisms of pseudoexpertise. We first provide a conceptual analysis of pseudoexperts based on prototypical cases of pseudoexpertise and recent philosophical work on the concept of expertise. This allows us to propose a definition that captures real-world cases of pseudoexpertise, distinguishes it from related but different concepts such as pseudoscience, and highlights what is wrong with pseudoexpertise. Next, based on this conceptual analysis, we propose a framework for further research on pseudoexpertise, built on relevant empirical and theoretical approaches to cultural cognition. We provide exploratory answers to three questions: why is there pseudoexpertise at all; how can pseudoexperts be successful despite not being experts; and what becomes of pseudoexperts in the long run. Together, these conceptual and theoretical approaches to pseudoexpertise draw a preliminary framework from which to approach the very troubling problem posed by persons usurping the capacities and reputations of genuine experts.

Keywords: cognition; culture; epistemology; expertise; pseudoexpertise; pseudoscience.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

    1. Agnew N. M., Ford K. M., Hayes P. J. (1997). “Expertise in context: personally constructed, socially selected, and reality-relevant?,” in Expertise in context, eds Feltovich P. J., Ford K. M., Hoffman R. R. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; ), 219–244.
    1. Altay S., de Araujo E., Mercier H. (2020a). “If this account is true, it is most enormously wonderful”: interestingness-if-true and the sharing of true and false news. PsyArXiv [Preprint]. 10.31234/osf.io/tdfh5 - DOI
    1. Altay S., Hacquin A. S., Mercier H. (2020b). Why do so few people share fake news? it hurts their reputation. New Media Soc. 10.1177/1461444820969893 - DOI
    1. Bago B., Rand D. G., Pennycook G. (2020). Fake news, fast and slow: deliberation reduces belief in false (but not true) news headlines. J. Exp. Psychol. 149:1608. 10.1037/xge0000729 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ballantyne N. (2019). Epistemic trespassing. Mind 128 367–395. 10.1093/mind/fzx042 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources