Intellectual Humility Can Strengthen Your Expert Opinion

By Noah Bolmer

Expert witnesses are expected to have deep knowledge of their disciplines, and that expectation may create a pressure to sound certain. But certainty and expertise are not the same thing. Often, the evidence is incomplete, the variables are complex, and reasonable conclusions carry some degree of uncertainty. A more meaningful measure of an expert’s credibility is whether the confidence expressed matches the reasoning behind the opinion; whether the expert understands what the evidence establishes, recognizes where inference begins, knows what could change the conclusion, and can acknowledge meaningful limitations without losing sight of the opinion itself.  

Calibrating Confidence 

Certainty is persuasive. An expert who delivers an answer without hesitation may appear more knowledgeable and credible than one who qualifies every conclusion. But confidence carries weight only when it reflects the strength of the underlying analysis. An expert addressing incomplete evidence, competing explanations, or assumptions that cannot be independently verified may have good reason to reach a strong conclusion while still recognizing some uncertainty. 

That distinction matters because uncertainty varies from one question to another. Some conclusions rest on well-established evidence and principles and can be stated with considerable confidence. Others depend on judgment calls, limited data, or inferences drawn from incomplete information. Treating both kinds of conclusions with the same degree of certainty can obscure the quality of the analysis rather than demonstrate it. 

The goal is calibration; an expert should be as confident as the evidence warrants. This does not require hedging every answer or turning a well-supported conclusion into a list of qualifications. It requires knowing how much confidence each part of the analysis deserves and being able to explain the difference. That is where credibility is nurtured: with a level of confidence that reflects the reasoning behind the conclusion. 

Understanding Inference 

An expert rarely moves directly from evidence to a conclusion. The analysis may involve interpreting a measurement, making an assumption about missing information, applying a methodology, and drawing an inference from the result. Each step adds something to the reasoning, and the expert should understand what role each component plays in reaching the conclusion. 

One way to examine that uncertainty is to work separate the components of the analysis: 

• What is directly established by the evidence?  

• What has been assumed because the evidence is incomplete?  

• What has been inferred from the available facts?  

• Where has professional judgment affected the analysis?  

• Which steps have the greatest effect on the ultimate conclusion?  

The distinction matters because a reasonable inference does not become an established fact simply because an expert has confidence in it. An assumption can also be reasonable and necessary without becoming part of the factual record. Keeping those distinctions clear allows an expert to explain the reasoning without overstating what the evidence itself establishes. 

This becomes particularly important when someone challenges one of the underlying steps. An expert who understands how the conclusion was constructed can explain what that step contributes and how the conclusion would be affected if it changed. That level of familiarity with the reasoning is a more meaningful demonstration of expertise than simply being certain of the final answer. 

Know What Could Change Your Mind 

A useful test of an expert’s reasoning is whether that expert can identify what evidence would cause a conclusion to change. That requires considering the possibility that the conclusion is wrong and identifying what information could demonstrate the error. This exercise is particularly valuable when the available evidence supports more than one plausible explanation, because it forces the expert to consider what would distinguish those explanations rather than simply building the strongest case for the preferred one. 

An expert who has considered a competing explanation should be able to explain why it is less persuasive and what evidence could make it more persuasive. That evidence might take the form of a different measurement, a previously unavailable document, additional testing, or information that undermines a key premise. The important point is that the expert has considered in advance what could produce a different result and has a basis for explaining why that evidence would matter. 

An expert does not need to anticipate (nor will end clients necessarily want to pay an expert to examine) every possible development or treat every alternative as equally plausible. The discipline lies in identifying the circumstances that would genuinely matter and remaining willing to reconsider the conclusion if they occur. A conclusion that can survive that examination has been tested in a meaningful way, and the expert can explain both how it was reached and what would cause it to change. 

When Evidence Changes 

New documents may surface, additional testing may produce different results, or an assumption that seemed reasonable may prove incorrect, and the response can reveal a great deal about the quality of the underlying reasoning. An expert who immediately dismisses inconvenient information may appear committed to a conclusion rather than engaged with the evidence, whereas changing direction whenever a new fact appears can create a different problem. Sound judgment requires evaluating the significance of the new information and determining whether it warrants a change. 

The process is easier when the expert has already identified the assumptions and inferences that matter most. New information can then be assessed against the existing analysis rather than treated as an isolated challenge. Sometimes it will have no meaningful effect. Sometimes it will require a qualification or a narrower conclusion. Unfortunately, in some cases, it may require the expert to start over. Changing an analysis when the evidence warrants it should not be viewed as an admission that the original work was careless. Good analysis is capable of correction. The credibility comes from the quality of the process, including the willingness to follow the evidence when it leads somewhere unexpected. 

“I Don’t Know” Is an Expert Answer 

Experts are retained because they possess knowledge that others do not. That can make it tempting to treat every question as an opportunity to demonstrate that knowledge. Yet expertise has boundaries. There will be questions for which the available evidence is insufficient, questions that depend on information the expert has not reviewed, and questions that fall outside the expert’s particular area of knowledge. Recognizing those limits is part of exercising professional judgment. 

The difficulty is that “I don’t know” can feel like a dangerous answer in litigation. An expert may worry that acknowledging uncertainty will give opposing counsel an opening or make the expert appear less qualified. That concern can encourage speculation, especially when a question seems to demand an answer and the expert feels pressure to provide one. Guessing may preserve the appearance of certainty in the moment, but it creates a much larger credibility problem if the answer cannot be supported. 

Engineering expert Stephan Athan recalls: 

The hardest thing for me was to say [was], “I don’t know.” As simple and trivial as that may sound, it took a long time for me to sit in the deposition and say, “I don’t know, I just don’t remember.” Because you want to give them an answer. As an engineer, this is what you’re trained to do; to provide solutions to complex problems, but sometimes you just don’t remember, or you don’t know. You should be true to yourself. [. . .] There is also an important distinction between not knowing and not being able to know. An expert may lack information that would permit a conclusion today, while additional evidence could resolve the question. In other situations, the available methodology may simply be incapable of producing the requested level of precision. The expert should understand which situation applies and explain the limitation accurately. 

Knowing when to stop is therefore part of knowing the subject. An expert who can identify the limits of the evidence, the limits of a methodology, and the limits of personal expertise demonstrates judgment that extends beyond any individual answer. In a setting where experts are often expected to have an answer for everything, the ability to recognize when an answer cannot responsibly be given can be one of the clearest signals of genuine expertise. 

Conclusion 

Credibility in an expert’s analysis is strengthened through habits such as questioning assumptions, testing conclusions, recognizing uncertainty, and remaining neutral by following the evidence wherever it leads. Those habits become most visible when the analysis encounters ambiguity, contrary evidence, an unexpected result, or a question that has no responsible answer. An expert who understands why a conclusion is strong, where it is vulnerable, and what its limits are has something more durable than confidence to rely on. In the end, the most convincing demonstration of expertise may be the quality of judgment that remains when certainty is no longer available. 

If you’d like to be considered for expert witness opportunities, join Round Table Group. For over 30 years, we’ve connected litigators with the most qualified experts across disciplines. Call us at 202‑908‑4500 or sign up today to learn more.