Social Epistemology- Post 1

     Recently, I have been reading about Social Epistemology. Of special interest to me are questions such as, "what are human concepts of knowledge and understanding" and "how do individuals gain these and relate them to notions of science and law."  As such, I decided a series of posts over the next couple of weeks concerning topics within Social Epistemology might be interesting and informative to other members of this class and help me get a firmer grasp on concepts within epistemology.
   First, I think I shall remark on a rather classic topic in epistemology: the ideas of experts and novices.  How can true novices, with no understanding of a particular (scientific) topic/field, be expected to understand what experts put forward as truth?  It seems that such individuals, at least at the point in time when they are true novices, are lacking in any ability to dissect a scientific argument.  As such, how can they determine which individuals are indeed experts without the necessary understanding?   I would posit that one method would be to look at an experts credentials and accreditation.  That is to say, by understanding whether a person is accepted as an expert by different social institutions (such as groups of scientists, universities, etc.), whether his or her theories have proven true in the past, or whether a person has reached a certain level of study that can be understood in simple terms (e.g. doctor, professor, student, graduate), novices can make an indirect judgement of an expert's ideas and decide to accept them.
    However, conflict arises when one finds two (or more) experts with conflicting theories.  These experts may be identical in education, acceptance by others in the field, etc., but still hold different conclusions concerning a certain phenomenon.  How does a novice decide which expert to believe, especially considering his or her lack of understanding of the field?  In practice, it seems that novices rely on certain norms, such as educational background, acceptance within the field and so on, to decide, believing whichever expert seems to have a greater background.
   But, what happens if the general consensus is wrong?  What if the less accepted theory is actually to become a paradigm shift (or could be if the community were able to accept it as true)?  How can any novice truly be expected, without years of training, to make such a decision?  The short answer, at least as I see it, is that he or she cannot.
   The reason all this is important is that in many ways novices dictate the future of scientific pursuits.  Novices include any individual not well versed in a field, such as Senators, businessmen, other scientists, grant committee members, Chancellors of colleges, investors, voters, and the general public.  How can it be expected that true science and the pure pursuit of knowledge exist if so many people who dictate the future of science are very much incapable of making informed decisions on the matter or even understanding which experts are to be trusted?  Is it the terrifying truth that we can't?