Relevant Expertise Aggregation : An Aristotelian middle way for epistemic democracy
نویسنده
چکیده
Decision-making in a democracy must respect democratic values, while advancing citizens’ interests. Decisions made in an epistemic democracy must also take into account relevant knowledge about the world. Neither aggregation of independent guesses nor deliberation, the standard approaches to epistemic democracy, offers a satisfactory theory of decision-making that is at once time-sensitive and capable of setting agendas endogenously. Analysis of passages by Aristotle and legislative process in ancient Athens points to a “middle way” that transcends those limitations. Relevant Expertise Aggregation (REA) offers an epistemic approach to decision-making in democratic organizations with minimally competent voters who share certain interests and knowledge. REA allows better choices among options to be made by basing choices on expertise in multiple relevant domains, through a time-sensitive process conjoining deliberation with voting. REA differs from a standard Condorcet jury in aggregating votes by relevant domains, based on reputations and arguments of domain-experts. © Josiah Ober. [email protected]
منابع مشابه
Democracy’s Wisdom: An Aristotelian Middle Way for Collective Judgment
Asatisfactory model of decision-making in an epistemic democracy must respect democratic values, while advancing citizens’ interests, by taking account of relevant knowledge about the world. Analysis of passages in Aristotle and legislative process in classical Athens points to a “middle way” between independent-guess aggregation and deliberation: an epistemic approach to decision-making that o...
متن کاملDemocratic Reason: the Mechanisms of Collective Intelligence in Politics
This paper argues that democracy can be seen as a way to channel “democratic reason,” or the collective intelligence of the many. The paper hypothesizes that two main democratic mechanisms—the practice of inclusive deliberation (in its direct and indirect versions) and the institution of majority rule with universal suffrage— combine their epistemic properties to maximize the chances that the g...
متن کاملThe Division of Epistemic Labor in Democracy
Thomas Christiano claims that one of the fundamental challenges democracy is faced with is the appropriate division of epistemic labor between citizens and experts. In this article I try to present and analyze Christiano’s solution from the perspective of social epistemology while utilizing the concepts and tools provided by this discipline. Despite fundamentally agreeing with his position, I a...
متن کاملA philosophical Approach to the Allocation or Aggregation of Geography
Introduction Geography first started with simple writing. But today, this science has gained a lot of potentials and with its technical tools which has at hand, has new specialized trends and is training new experts and specialists. Hence, in the present age, especially in Iran, geography is referred to as (interdisciplinary science), because it both studies natural sciences and human sciences...
متن کاملEpistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem*
Classical debates, recently rejoined, rage over the question of whether we want our political outcomes to be right or whether we want them to be fair. Democracy can be (and has been) justified in either way, or both at once. For epistemic democrats, the aim of democracy is to "track the truth." 1 For them, democracy is more desirable than alternative forms of decision-making because, and insofa...
متن کامل