Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Philip Tetlock underestimates the import of his own Expert Political Judgment. It is much more than a critical scientific evaluation of the accuracy and consistency of political pundits. It also offers a blueprint for challenging expertise more generally-in the name of scientific advancement. “Thinking the unthinkable”-a strategy Tetlock employs when he gets experts to consider counterfactual scenarios that are far from their epistemic comfort zones-has had explosive consequences historically for both knowledge and morality by extending our sense of what is possible. Thinking the unthinkable might also put into question contemporary assumptions about the legitimacy of science.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Steve Fuller (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: