How to trust the experts without being one of them?

The question of trust is not only epistemological. It is also social, institutional. Trusting science entails not only, or not specifically, an understanding of the epistemological and methodological protocols followed by science in producing its results. It also requires awareness of the contexts where these protocols are used, including their purposes, functions and agents involved – all of which goes well beyond what happens within the closed doors of a research laboratory. This form of disjunction on matters of trust brings to the fore an essential issue: If the trustworthiness of bodies of knowledge is most naturally within the remit of those categories of people who are in control of the conditions and protocols for producing this knowledge (e.g. the community of scientists), how can people who do not belong to the same community achieve at least an acceptable degree of trust towards that very knowledge? In other words, how can we trust the experts when we are not experts ourselves? What are the conditions and constraints that play a part in building this type of trust? And what is the institutional framework that makes this type of trust possible, and even desirable, in view of achieving the type of social cohesion and participation which makes the very activity of science thrive, possibly for the right reasons? In view of addressing these questions, I will proceed as follows: First, I will explore what brings us to trust (or not trust) the experts without being one of them. Secondly, I will comment on what it takes to trust the institutions that call on scientific advice. Finally, I will bring in some reflections on the role of scientific literacy in the debate on trust and expertise.