Should non-experts defer to epidemiologists with regard to the response to the coronavirus pandemic? We argue that deference is required with regard to settled science: non-experts (that is, people who may possess expertise of their own but whose expertise is not relevant to a particular question) ought to defer with regard to climate science and the efficacy of vaccines. However, we suggest that this deference is warranted because these questions have been appropriately probed many times by many different kinds of people. While non-experts should defer to epidemiologists with regard to matters within the sphere of epidemiology specifically, responding to the pandemic requires expertise from many fields. We best build a consensus worth deferring to by contributing our expertise now. Ethicists and philosophers are not epistemically arrogant if they question policy responses. Rather, they play a responsible role in building a reliable consensus.

中文翻译：

---

面对大流行的认知责任。

在应对冠状病毒大流行方面，非专家是否应该听从流行病学家的意见？我们认为，对于已确立的科学，需要尊重：非专家（即，可能拥有自己的专业知识但其专业知识与特定问题无关的人）应该在气候科学和疫苗。然而，我们建议这种尊重是有道理的，因为这些问题已经被许多不同类型的人适当地探讨过很多次。虽然非专家应该在流行病学领域内的具体问题上听从流行病学家的意见，但应对大流行需要来自许多领域的专业知识。我们现在最好通过贡献我们的专业知识来建立值得推迟的共识。如果伦理学家和哲学家质疑政策反应，他们在认知上并不傲慢。相反，他们在建立可靠共识方面发挥着负责任的作用。