Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T07:06:38.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Democracy and the Social Character of Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Michael Fuerstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How can democratic governments be relied upon to achieve adequate political knowledge when they turn over their authority to those of no epistemic distinction whatsoever? This deep and longstanding concern is one that any proponent of epistemic conceptions of democracy must take seriously. While Condorcetian responses have recently attracted substantial interest, they are largely undermined by a fundamental neglect of agenda-setting. I argue that the apparent intractability of the problem of epistemic adequacy in democracy stems in large part from a failure to appreciate the social character of political knowledge. A social point of view brings into focus a number of vital factors that bear on our understanding of democratic epistemology and our assessment of its prospects: the essential role of inclusive deliberation, the public's agenda-setting function, institutional provisions for policy feedback, the independence of expert communities, and the knowledge-pooling powers of markets.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 74 - 93
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1–2): 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohman, James and Rehg, William. (eds.) 1997. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, Richard. 2006. “Taking Advantage of Difference of Opinion.” Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(3): 141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caplan, Bryan. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. 1986. “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.” Ethics 97(1): 26–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Jules and Ferejohn, John. 1986. “Democracy and Social Choice.” Ethics 97(1): 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, David M. 1993. “Making Truth Safe for Democracy.” In Copp, D., Hampton, J., and Roemer, J. E. (eds.), The Idea of Democracy, pp. 71–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, David M. 1994. “Opinion Leaders, Independence, and Condorcet's Jury Theorem.” Theory and Decision 36(2): 131–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David M. 1997. “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority.” In Bohman, J. and Rehg, W. (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, pp. 173–204. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, David M. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Estlund, David M., Waldron, Jeremy, Grofman, Bernard, and Feld, Scott L.. 1989. “Democratic Theory and the Public Interest: Condorcet and Rousseau Revisited.” American Political Science Review 83(4): 1317–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, James S. and Laslett, Peter. (eds.) 2003. Debating Deliberative Democracy. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, Gerald. 1997. “Does Democracy Reveal the Voice of the People? Four Takes on Rousseau.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75(2): 141–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin I. 1999. Knowledge in a Social World. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, Robert E. 2003. Reflective Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard and Feld, Scott L.. 1988. “Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective.” The American Political Science Review 82(2): 567–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Owen, Guillermo, and Feld, Scott L.. 1983. “Thirteen Theorems in Search of the Truth.” Theory and Decision 15(3): 261–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Harper's Index.” August 2007. Harper's Magazine 315 (1887): 11.Google Scholar
Hayek, Friedrich. A. 1945. “The Use of Knowledge in Society.” The American Economic Review 35(4): 519–30.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1990. “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” Journal of Philosophy 87(1): 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1993. The Advancement of Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, Christian and Goodin, Robert E.. 2001. “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Journal of Political Philosophy 9(3): 277–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCubbins, Matthew D. and Lupia, Arthur. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John S. 1861/1991. “Considerations on Representative Government.” In Gray, J. (ed.), On Liberty and Other Essays, pp. 205–470. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 1997. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip. 2001. “Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma.” Philosophical Issues 11: 268–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plato, . 1953. “The Republic.” P. Shorey (trans.). In Cairns, H. and Hamilton, E. (eds.), The Collected Dialogues of Plato, pp. 575–844. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Henry S. 1997. Practical Reasoning about Final Ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Henry S. 2002. Democratic Autonomy: Public Reasoning about the Ends of Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1950. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, third edition. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. “The Law of Group Polarization.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2): 175–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. 2006. “Deliberating Groups vs. Prediction Markets (or Hayek's Challenge to Habermas).” Episteme, A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(3): 192–213.Google Scholar