Experts say

What happens when you have too many studies and don't want to have to cite them all? Or if the studies are too complicated and you just need to explain the overall in a way that your audience can understand?

Easy! Get some expert testimony!

You can quote experts at length, as in this article about chronic absenteeism in school:

Experts point to deeper issues, some that have long troubled students and schools and others that are only now apparent in the aftermath of school shutdowns.

“When you see these high levels of chronic absence, it’s a reflection that the positive conditions of learning that are essential for motivating kids to show up to school have been eroded,” said Hedy Chang, the founder and executive director of Attendance Works, an organization that tracks attendance data and helps states address chronic absenteeism. “It’s a sign that kids aren’t feeling physically and emotionally healthy and safe. Belonging, connection, and support — in addition to the academic challenge and engagement and investments in student and adult well-being — are all so crucial to positive conditions for learning.”

"Why so many kids are still missing school"(2024)

Within the context of the article, this whole snippet is a piece of evidence.

The evidence begins by summarising what experts have found in their observations. (It's not clear if any of these experts have done any studies.)
To substantiate that summary and to add compelling detail, the writers quote an expert.
To substantiate the quote, and to add credibility, the writers attribute the quote using the expert's name and qualifications.

Notice how, in this snippet, the heavy lifting is done by the quote, which makes its own kind of miniature cause & effect argument about what causes kids to miss school.

You could get an expert to tell the audience the key takeaway message from a piece of evidence:

In another experiment, recently conducted at Stanford University’s Communication Between Humans and Interactive Media Lab, a team of researchers gave various cognitive tests to 49 people who do a lot of media multitasking and 52 people who multitask much less frequently. The heavy multitaskers performed poorly on all the tests. They were more easily distracted, had less control over their attention, and were much less able to distinguish important information from trivia.

The researchers were surprised by the results. They had expected that the intensive multitaskers would have gained some unique mental advantages from all their on-screen juggling. But that wasn’t the case. In fact, the heavy multitaskers weren’t even good at multitasking. They were considerably less adept at switching between tasks than the more infrequent multitaskers. “Everything distracts them,” observed Clifford Nass, the professor who heads the Stanford lab.

"Does the Internet Make You Dumber?"(2010)

Again, in the context of the article, this whole snippet is a piece of evidence.

But notice the differences with the previous snippet.

This snippet summarises the method for a single study. Why? Probably because the writer thinks the details of the study are compelling.
The quote is used as a kind of punchline at the end of the summary, telling the audience what the evidence means.
And again we see the quote is substantiated with an attribution.

You can ask experts for testimony about anything, not just scientific studies.

And you don't have to quote an expert directly; you can also quote them indirectly by paraphrasing their statements.

This snippet paraphrases expert opinion about government policy on drones:

Last week, lobbyists for Amazon, Google, and other high-tech behemoths scrabbled through the Congress, trying to shape a bill that would reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration to regulate the use of drones in the US. Such is the vast power of the feudal states we call corporations that they will probably succeed.

Critics have pointed out that having thousands of drones buzzing around, particularly in the vicinity of our airports, is a recipe for disaster. Privacy advocates have meanwhile raised the alarming specter of a total surveillance society. Imagine the NSA harnessing the power of drones equipped with high-definition cameras and sophisticated communications equipment, monitoring us in our own backyards, or even our homes.

"The Drone Invasion"(2016)

In the article, this snippet is actually from the issue part of the argument, not the evidence. It's setting up the problem.

Expert testimony is used to show that the issue is serious.
Experts aren't quoted directly; there's no attribution.
Instead, the writer paraphrases one or more experts. (And we have to assume that the writer actually read or spoke to these people and represented their opinions accurately.)

We often use indirect quotes when we want to aggregate the opinions of many experts into a single message:

Another myth promulgated by the Amethyst Initiative is that European young people are taught by families to drink responsibly because of the typically lower legal drinking ages there. The reverse is the case. Surveys of youth in multiple European countries show that rates of frequent binge drinking among adolescents are higher in Europe than in the United States.

Panels of experts, convened separately by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the evidence on the age-21 law and concluded that it is effective public policy. Rather than lowering the drinking age, they recommended bolstering the law by closing loopholes in state law and strengthening enforcement.

"Drinking age of 21 saves lives"(2009)

Another myth promulgated by the Amethyst Initiative is that European young people are taught by families to drink responsibly because of the typically lower legal drinking ages there. The reverse is the case. Surveys of youth in multiple European countries show that rates of frequent binge drinking among adolescents are higher in Europe than in the United States.

Panels of experts, convened separately by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the evidence on the age-21 law and concluded that it is effective public policy. Rather than lowering the drinking age, they recommended bolstering the law by closing loopholes in state law and strengthening enforcement.

"Drinking age of 21 saves lives"(2009)

Another myth promulgated by the Amethyst Initiative is that European young people are taught by families to drink responsibly because of the typically lower legal drinking ages there. The reverse is the case. Surveys of youth in multiple European countries show that rates of frequent binge drinking among adolescents are higher in Europe than in the United States.

Panels of experts, convened separately by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have studied the evidence on the age-21 law and concluded that it is effective public policy. Rather than lowering the drinking age, they recommended bolstering the law by closing loopholes in state law and strengthening enforcement.

"Drinking age of 21 saves lives"(2009)

This snippet is from a myth-busting section of an article about legal drinking ages, and each myth is busted with a miniature argument.

So in terms of components, this snippet has an issue, a claim, and evidence.

If we focus on the evidence, we can see:

A summary of European findings.
High-level attribution for several groups of experts (not just saying, "Experts say...")
A paraphrase of their opinion.

Of course, experts can be wrong, or their views can be misrepresented (a quote can be taken out of context, a paraphrase can be inaccurate, and so on).

For example, here's a zoology expert angry about how they were quoted in a documentary:

An executive with the international organisation responsible for the Dolphin Safe tuna label, Mark Palmer, has said his comments were taken out of context.

In a scene in the film, Palmer, the associate US director of the International Marine Mammal Project (IMMP), was asked if his group could guarantee that no dolphins were ever killed in any tuna fishery anywhere in the world.

“I answered there are no guarantees in life but that drastically reducing the number of vessels intentionally chasing and netting dolphins as well as other regulations in place, that the number of dolphins that are killed is very low”, he said.

“The film took my statement out of context to suggest that there is no oversight and we don’t know whether dolphins are being killed. That is not true.”

"Seaspiracy: Netflix documentary accused of misrepresentation by participants"(2021)

Notice how the expert in the snippet is not saying the quoted words were inaccurate; they are angry because they feel that the documentary makers have repackaged their words to use as evidence in support of a claim the expert disagrees with.

This is an amazingly common issue. Here's another example, this time from a legal expert who is angry about how their comments were used during a political campaign (again, their grievance is not with the quotes, but with the claim that their quotes were used to support):

Craven, a constitutional law professor and member of the government’s expert legal group that debated the constitutional amendment and referendum question, had publicly questioned details of the draft amendment before it was finalised.

Craven’s previous concern that the amendment was “fatally flawed” and would lead to “regular judicial interventions” was included in the no essay, with the essay describing him as “a constitutional law professor who supports the voice”.

However, he has since given his full-throated support to the voice, including penning a 2,500-word essay in favour of the change – stating that the voice wasn’t “merely a good idea – it is the decent thing”.

Craven said he was “thoroughly irritated” to be quoted. He said he was critical of the early drafting of the amendment but had supported it since the wording was settled.

“It’s well known to everyone in the no case and the opposition that my fundamental position has been I’m absolutely in favour of the voice and will campaign for the voice with great determination,” Craven said. “To use me as an example of voting no, even with some minor footnote, is deeply misleading.”

"‘Deeply misleading’: legal expert furious no campaign used his previous voice concerns in pamphlet"(2023)

Let's make up some expert evidence to support this heading.

Write 2-3 sentences of fake expert evidence to support the argument that the internet is making us dumb.

(Bonus points if you can find someone on the web saying the internet makes us smarter, and then quote them in a way that makes it look like they're saying the opposite.)

Write 2-3 sentences of fake expert evidence to support the argument that the internet is making us dumb.

In a nutshell

We quote experts in order to summarise or interpret evidence.
We can then use those quotes as a new form of evidence.
We can quote directly or indirectly (i.e. word for word or paraphrasing).
We can quote specific individuals or groups of experts.
We always attribute a quote to the relevant expert.
We will attribute a paraphrase of a specific expert to that expert, but if we are paraphrasing opinions from a group then the attribution might be more generic.
Expert testimony is effective because it can convey authority and build trust, and it can be phrased in such a way that it makes complex issues accessible to a general audience.
Major drawbacks of expert testimony are that it loses nuance and context, and it can easily be used to make claims or support arguments the expert doesn't agree with.

Forms of evidence