Advertisement

Epistemic Democracy

Chapter
  • 112 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Ethics and Public Policy book series (PASEPP)

Abstract

This chapter introduces the claim that, even though political decisions can be right and wrong, and even though there are experts in politics, we should not give greater political authority to any specific group of citizens. This can be claimed only if one adopts a non-monistic account of political legitimacy, such as Estlund’s standard account of epistemic democracy, which I endorse and defend in this book. The chapter proceeds by analyzing how various forms of democratic decision-making meet the criteria set by Estlund and concludes that aggregative democracy should be rejected in favor of deliberative democracy.

Keywords

Epistemic populism Standard account of epistemic democracy Aggregative democracy Deliberative democracy Jury theorem 

References

  1. Anderson, Elizabeth. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme 3, nos. 1–2 (2006): 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, Elizabeth. “Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions.” Social Epistemology 26, no. 2 (2012): 163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle. “Politics.” In The Complete Works of Aristotle, Vol. 2, edited by Jonathan Barnes, 2–175. New York: Princeton University Press, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, Kenneth. Social Choice and Individual Values. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  5. Arrow, Kenneth. Social Choice and Justice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. Bohman, James. “Deliberative Democracy and the Epistemic Benefits of Diversity.” Episteme 3, no. 3 (2006): 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Catala, Amandine. “Democracy, Trust, and Epistemic Justice.” The Monist 98, no. 4 (2015): 424–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christiano, Thomas. The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory. Boulder: Westview Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Christiano, Thomas. The Constitution of Equality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, Joshua. “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.” Ethics 97, no. 1 (1986): 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Condorcet, Marquis. Foundations of Social Choice and Political Theory. Northampton: Edward Elgar, 1994.Google Scholar
  12. Dietrich, Franz, and Kai Spiekermann. “Epistemic Democracy with Defensible Premises.” Economics and Philosophy 29, no. 1 (2013): 87–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edyvane, Derek. Civic Virtue and the Sovereignty of Evil. New York: Routledge, 2013.Google Scholar
  14. Estlund, David. “Making Truth Safe for Democracy.” In The Idea of Democracy, edited by David Copp, Jean Hampton, and John E. Roemer, 71–100. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. Estlund, David. “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by James Bohman and William Rehg, 173–204. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  16. Estlund, David. Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  17. Estlund, David. “Epistemic Proceduralism and Democratic Authority.” In Does Truth Matter? Democracy and Public Space, edited by Ronald Tinnevelt and Raf Geenens, 15–27. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Estlund, David. “The Truth in Political Liberalism.” In Truth and Democratic Politics, edited by Andrew Norris and Jeremy Elkins, 251–335. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2010.Google Scholar
  19. Festenstein, Matthew. “Truth and Trust in Democratic Epistemology.” In Does Truth Matter? Democracy and Public Space, edited by Ronald Tinnevelt and Raf Geenens, 69–79. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fricker, Miranda. “Epistemic Justice as a Condition of Political Freedom.” Synthese 190, no. 7 (2013): 1317–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldman, Alvin I. “Foundations of Social Epistemics.” Synthese 73, no. 1 (1987): 109–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodin, Robert E. Reflective Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodin, Robert E., and David Estlund. “The Persuasiveness of Democratic Majorities.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3, no. 2 (2004): 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodin, Robert E. “The Benefits of Multiple Biased Observers.” Episteme 3, no. 3 (2006): 166–174.Google Scholar
  26. Goodin, Robert E., and Kai Spiekermann. An Epistemic Theory of Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
  27. Grofman, Bernard, and Scott L. Feld. “Rousseau’s General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective.” The American Political Science Review 82, no. 2 (1988): 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grofman, Bernard, and Scott L. Feld. “Democratic Theory and the Public Interest: Condorcet and Rousseau Revisited.” The American Political Science Review 83, no. 4 (1989): 1317–1340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ladha, Krishna K. “The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 36, no. 3 (1992): 617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. List, Christian, and Robert E. Goodin. “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 9, no. 3 (2001): 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. List, Christian, and Kai Spiekermann. “The Condorcet Jury Theorem and Voter-Specific Truth.” In Alvin Goldman and His Critics, edited by Hilary Kornblith and Brian McLaughlin, 216–233. Chichester: Wiley, 2016. Google Scholar
  32. Misak, Cheryl. Truth and the End of Inquiry: A Peircean Account of Truth. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Misak, Cheryl. “Truth and Democracy: Pragmatism and Deliberative Virtues.” In Does Truth Matter? Democracy and Public Space, edited by Ronald Tinnevelt and Raf Geenens, 29–39. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Percival, Philip, and Robert Stalnaker. “Epistemic Consequentialism.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76, no. 1 (2002): 121–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peter, Fabienne. Democratic Legitimacy. London: Routledge, 2011.Google Scholar
  36. Peter, Fabienne. “The Procedural Epistemic Value of Deliberation.” Synthese 190, no. 7 (2012): 1253–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plato. The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  38. Rawls, John. A Study in the Grounds of Ethical Knowledge. Published PhD Thesis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1950.Google Scholar
  39. Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  40. Rawls, John. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  41. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. London: Penguin Books, 1968.Google Scholar
  42. Surowiecki, James. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor, 2005.Google Scholar
  43. Talisse, Robert B. Democracy and Moral Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Talisse, Robert B. “Folk Epistemology and the Justification of Democracy.” In Does Truth Matter? Democracy and Public Space, edited by Ronald Tinnevelt and Raf Geenens, 41–54. Dordrecht: Springer, 2009b.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of RijekaRijekaCroatia

Personalised recommendations