Epistemic trespassers are experts who pass judgment on questions in fields where they lack expertise. What’s wrong with epistemic trespassing? I identify several limitations with a seminal analysis to isolate three desiderata on an answer to this question and motivate my own answer. An answer (i) should explain what’s wrong in the cases that motivate inquiry into epistemic trespassing, (ii) should explain what’s wrong with epistemic trespassing even if trespassers do not acknowledge their trespassing, and (iii) these explanations should not be independent of the fact that epistemic trespassing involves expertise. I also independently motivate a fourth desideratum: (iv) this account should explain the evaluative difference between different kinds of trespassing. To satisfy these desiderata, I develop a social analysis: epistemic trespassing is wrong because it is an abuse of expert authority that neglects novice vulnerabilities.

认知侵入者是在缺乏专业知识的领域对问题做出判断的专家。认知入侵有什么问题？我通过开创性分析确定了几个限制，以在这个问题的答案上分离出三个必要条件并激发我自己的答案。答案（i）应该解释在激发对认知侵入的调查的情况下出了什么问题，（ii）应该解释认知侵入有什么问题，即使侵入者不承认他们的侵入，并且（iii）这些解释不应该独立于事实上，认知侵入涉及专业知识。我还独立地激发了第四个愿望：（iv）这个帐户应该解释不同类型的侵入之间的评估差异。为了满足这些需求，我进行了一项社会分析：认知侵入是错误的，因为它是对专家权威的滥用，而忽视了新手的弱点。