Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T08:53:29.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberative democracy and epistemic humility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2011

Kevin Chien-Chang Wu
Kevin Chien-Chang Wu
Affiliation:
National Taiwan University College of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan. ccwu88@ntu.edu.tw
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deliberative democracy is one of the best designs that could facilitate good public policy decision making and bring about epistemic good based on Mercier and Sperber's (M&S's) theory of reasoning. However, three conditions are necessary: (1) an ethic of individual epistemic humility, (2) a pragmatic deflationist definition of truth, and (3) a microscopic framing power analysis during group reasoning.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 93 - 94
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E. & Gauvin, F.-P. (2003) Deliberation about deliberative methods: Issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 57:239–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, E. (2006) The epistemology of democracy. Episteme: Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1–2):8–22.Google Scholar
Fearon, J. D. (1998) Deliberation as discussion. In: Deliberative democracy, ed. Elster, J., pp. 44–68. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. (2007) Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godlee, F. (2010) Conflicts of interest and pandemic flu: WHO must act now to restore its credibility, and Europe should legislate. British Medical Journal 340:1256–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2004) Why deliberative democracy? Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2003) Technologies of humility: Citizen participation in governing science. Minerva 41:223–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lengwiler, M. (2008) Participatory approaches in science and technology: Historical origins and current practices in critical perspective. Science, Technology, & Human Values 33(2):186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misak, C. (2009) Truth and democarcy: Pragmatism and the deliberative virtues. In: Does truth matter? Democracy and public space, ed. Geenens, R. & Tinnevelt, R., pp. 29–39. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Olsen, B. (2010) Conceptual exclusion and public reason. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40(2):213–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryfe, D. M. (2005) Does deliberative democracy work? Annual Review of Political Science 8:49–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talisse, R. B. (2009) Folk epistemology and the justification of democracy. In: Does truth matter? Democracy and public space, ed. Geenens, R. & Tinnevelt, R., pp. 41–54. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, D. F. (2008) Deliberative democratic theory and empirical political science. Annual Review of Political Science 11:497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, K. C.-C. (2008) Expanding the vision of visual bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics 8(12):63–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wynne, B. (1996) May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert–lay knowledge divide. In: Risk, environment & modernity: Towards a new ecology, ed. Lash, S., Szerszynski, B. & Wynne, B., pp. 44–83. Sage.Google Scholar