Deliberative Democracy

On many science-related policy questions, the public is unable to make informed decisions, because of its inability to make use of knowledge obtained by scientists. Philip Kitcher and James Fishkin have both suggested therefore that on certain science-related issues, public policy should not be decided on by actual democratic vote, but should instead conform to the public’s counterfactual informed democratic decision. Indeed, this suggestion underlies Kitcher’s specification of an ideal of a well-ordered science. This article argues that this suggestion misconstrues (...) the normative significance of CIDDs. At most, CIDDs might have epistemic significance, but no authority or legitimizing force. (shrink)

The Companion is a reader’s guide to Dyology: On Diversity and Equality. It works through the book chapter by chapter in one fixed format, and it keeps to three commitments. It quotes exactly and sparingly: single quotation marks always enclose the book’s own words, an ellipsis marks every elision, and quotation runs under a tenth of each unit, the rest being paraphrase. It reports the book’s grades and dependencies and adds no verdict of its own. And it gives the concessions (...) the same prominence as the conclusions, since a book that prices what it cannot prove, names the joints where it can fail and states what would refute each result would be misreported by a summary of its conclusions alone. Twenty-four units, one per chapter, are grouped in four parts that follow the book’s arch: Bedrock and Footing (Chapters 1–7), the Theological Pier (8–12), the Metaethical Pier (13–16), and the Curves and the Keystone (17–24). Each unit opens with an Overview that says what the chapter argues, which instruments it builds and what it concedes, beginning on a case, a question or a thought experiment. A Key Terms table gives five or six terms a plain meaning first and, where it helps, the book’s own phrase and section. Two or three machinery sections walk through the arguments in order, stating each named philosopher’s view at first mention. Objections and Replies sets each objection at its strongest beside the reply the chapter gives. What Would Falsify the Chapter collects the premises whose failure would take results down with them, the tests the chapter stakes itself on, and the limits it concedes. Status of the Results lists every result with its section and its grade, then what the chapter presupposes and what later chapters do with it, both read chiefly off the Premise Register. Three Questions for Discussion close the unit, pressing on points the chapter flags, often from the critic’s side, with no answer key. The front matter explains the apparatus: the shape of a unit and of a manuscript chapter; the four-term confidence ladder — self-vindicating, established, constructed, proposed — with the one rule that governs it, that no result is more secure than the weakest premise it inherits, the lettered conditions on grades and the dialectical qualifier; the conventions of quotation and reference; and the book’s three reading routes. The Argument at a Glance reproduces the book’s own drawing of its argument as an arch and tables every chapter’s place in it, its central claim and what it presupposes, and Where the Weight Sits names the joints that carry more load than their position suggests. The back matter orients the reader to the General Conclusion, the three appendices and the use of the Premise Register; Reading the Whole gathers what shows only from the whole, the argument’s shape, its habits of method and its recurring instruments; Where the Field Will Push, the one piece written in the compiler’s own voice and labelled as such, maps where specialist readers are likely to press on each chapter; and a Selected Glossary gives the terms that recur across chapters in their briefest usable form. This is The Dyology Companion by Robin Mains (2026), prepared with AI assistance against the manuscript of September 2026 and checked against it. It is no substitute for the book, no evaluation or defence of it, and no authority over it: wherever the two appear to disagree, the manuscript governs. Its chapter and section references are the same in the single-volume book and in both volumes. (shrink)

Deliberative democracy depends on carefully designed institutional frameworks — such as participant selection, facilitation methods, and decision-making mechanisms — that shape how deliberation performs. However, identifying optimal institutional designs for specific contexts remains challenging when relying solely on real-world observations or laboratory experiments: they can be expensive, ethically and methodologically tricky, or too limited in scale to give us clear answers. Computational experiments offer a complementary approach, enabling researchers to conduct large-scale investigations while systematically analyzing complex dynamics, emergent and unexpected (...) collective behavior, and risks or opportunities associated with novel democratic designs. Therefore, this paper explores Digital Twin (DT) technology as a computational testing ground for deliberative systems (with potential applicability to broader institutional analysis). By constructing dynamic models that simulate real-world deliberation, DTs allow researchers and policymakers to rigorously test "what-if" scenarios across diverse institutional configurations in a controlled virtual environment. This approach facilitates evidence-based assessment of novel designs using synthetically generated data, bypassing the constraints of real-world or lab-based experimentation, and without societal disruption. The paper also discusses the limitations of this new methodological approach and suggests where future research should focus. (shrink)

(Pre-publication draft November 2015: Partial content of "Introduction: The 2030 Agenda," Journal of Global Ethics 11:3 [December 2015], 262-270) This introduction briefly explains the process through which the Sustainable Development Goals have developed from their receipt in 2014 to their passage in September 2015 by the UN General Assembly, and it considers their development in prospect. The Millennium Development Goals, which spanned 1990-2015, present a case study that reveals the changeability of such long-term multilateral commitments. They were enmeshed in overlapping (...) and inconsistent national and intergovernmental commitments reaching from 1995 to 2005, and the text of those goals also evolved, stabilizing for the last time in 2007. The Sustainable Development Goals and attendant commitments should be expected to evolve similarly over their fifteen year run. This presents a concern, for among the three committees established by the UN to create the goals, the two committees charged with public consultation were retired as planned in 2014. The process evident thereafter has displayed a shift towards a strategy of enrolling broad public endorsement that leaves such consultation and specific responsibility to those consulted in doubt. This bodes ill for public deliberation on the goals and for public accountability as the agenda proceeds towards 2030. (shrink)

The AI alignment problem comprises both technical and normative dimensions. While technical solutions focus on implementing normative constraints in AI systems, the normative problem concerns determining what these constraints should be. This paper examines justifications for democratic approaches to the normative problem—where affected stakeholders determine AI alignment—as opposed to epistocratic approaches that defer to normative experts. We analyze both instrumental justifications (democratic approaches produce better outcomes) and non-instrumental justifications (democratic approaches prevent illegitimate authority or coercion). We argue that normative and (...) metanormative uncertainty create a justificatory gap that democratic approaches aim to fill through political rather than theoretical justification. However, we identify significant challenges for democratic approaches, particularly regarding the prevention of illegitimate coercion through AI alignment. Our analysis suggests that neither purely epistocratic nor purely democratic approaches may be sufficient on their own, pointing toward hybrid frameworks that combine expert judgment with participatory input alongside institutional safeguards against AI monopolization. (shrink)

An emergent cluster of theories argues that contestation is key to answering the question of whose values should guide science. This paper systematizes this contestatory approach by highlighting how it differs from its main “democratic alignment” competitor, marking what I describe as a systemic turn in the debate. It then develops two original objections to the contestatory approach, focusing on its over-permissiveness and a missing evidence problem. Finally, by bringing together those two objections and three classic flaws of democratic alignment, (...) it advances five desiderata for any theory that might aim to break the impasse between democratic alignment and contestation. (shrink)

How might discourse generate political change? So far, democratic theorists have focused largely on how deliberative exchanges might shift political opinion. Responding to empirical research that casts doubt on the generalizability of deliberative mechanisms outside of carefully designed forums, this essay seeks to broaden the scope of discourse theory by considering speech that addresses participants’ identities instead. More specifically, we ask what may be learned about identity-oriented discourse by examining the practice of religious preaching. As we demonstrate, scholars of homiletics—the (...) study of preaching—have identified three core features that support its focus on identity: its unconditionality, its appeal to authoritative texts and traditions, and its diffuse instrumentality. We then ask what each of these features might look like in more straightforwardly political contexts. Finally, we address several normative questions raised by this practice, as a way of exploring the promises and dangers accompanying identity-oriented discourse more generally. (shrink)

Governments are often so focused on short-term gains that they ignore the long term, thus creating extra unnecessary burdens on their citizens, and violating their responsibilities to future generations. What can be done about this? In this paper I propose a package of reforms to the ways in which policies are made by legislatures, and in which those policies are scrutinised, implemented and evaluated. The overarching aim is to enhance the accountability of the decision-making process in ways that take into (...) account the interests of persons in the future. (shrink)

In this chapter we discuss the difference between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the minority. A first step to preventing either is to redesign existing political institutions. We therefore examine each of the major components of the U.S government, summarizing their functions, problems, and making suggested reforms. We then do the same for parliamentary systems of the sort found in Europe and elsewhere. Following this we look at alternate forms of democracy. These are more experimental systems that have (...) yet to be adopted at a national level. They include methodologies that foster forms of deliberative democracy, liquid delegation systems, quadratic voting, citizen assemblies, and prediction markets. Education is critical to an informed electorate, but educational institutions have yet to do an effective job in countering nefarious politicians and disinformation on social media. Democratic information systems that are unbiased and non-partisan include the Society Library's Internet Government Project and the Great American Debate project, which we describe. We conclude with a discussion of the role science can play in the political process. (shrink)

In recent years, autocratic leaders around the world have gained ascendancy by attacking institutions like congress and the courts designed to keep political power in check. Simultaneously, they have subverted institutions like science and a free press that help us make sense of what is happening. These twin assaults on freedom and truth have undermined democracy and threaten human civilization. -/- In this work Jay Friedenberg provides the background to understand politics, why it is failing, and how to fix it. (...) He also analyzes changes in the news industry, the problems with modern-day social media platforms, and how we can build a better system not prone to algorithmic distortion. Authoritarianism and polarization are both the cause and effect of these problems, so these are also treated in detail. -/- This book is both comprehensive and cross-disciplinary in approach. The mechanisms underlying governance and news are explained in terms of evolution, cognitive psychology, philosophy, and political science. It includes appendices with an index of 21st century dictators and their rise to power along with a list of related think tanks. Academically rigorous but accessible, theoretical and practical, historical and contemporary, this is one of the most rigorous treatments of the intersection between politics and propaganda. (shrink)

La tesis central de este trabajo es que la tradicional tensión entre substancia y procedimiento socava las estabilidad de la justificación de la concepción liberal más extendida de la legitimidad (la Democracia Deliberativa). Dicha concepciones enfrentan problemas serios a la hora de articular de manera consistente dos dimensiones que parecen ir naturalmente asociadas a la idea de legitimidad: la dimensión procedimental, vinculada a la equidad del procedimiento, y la dimensión epistémica, asociada a la corrección de los resultados. En este trabajo (...) sostengo que a) esa tensión surge de la adopción de una concepción epistemológica social de tipo "veritativo-consecuencialista; b) es posible manejar dicha tensión mediante el remplazo de la epistemología subyacente por una concepción epistemológica social de tipo procedimentalista de orientación pragmatista y c) dicha operación orienta el diseño institucional en una dirección experimentalista. (shrink)

Recent surveys reveal widespread disillusionment with electoral representative democracy due to elite capture, prompting interest in lottocracy—randomly selecting legislators to enhance democratic authenticity and epistemic quality of decisions. However, current lottocratic models face two challenges: accountability, as randomly selected legislators lack the reelection pressure to act in the public interest, and authenticity, as citizens might blindly defer to a random few. This essay introduces the Madisonian lottocracy, a model that preserves lottocracy's benefits while overcoming these hurdles. In this model, multiple (...) single-issue legislatures serve a filtering role rather than making final decisions. Randomly selected legislators deliberate on policy options, which are then presented to a jurisdictional referendum. This design instills a form of electoral accountability that incentivizes responsive action and allows citizens to critically assess refined options instead of deferring unconditionally. (shrink)

When citizens deliberate, they aim at truth, weighing reasons and evidence to figure out which decisions are correct. Many theorists infer that the justification of deliberative democracy must therefore be, at least partly, epistemic. I call this the “epistemic inference” and argue that it fails. It conflates the aim of an activity (i.e., what participants intend to achieve within a practice) with its purpose (i.e., what makes the practice worth having). Deliberators must aim at truth, yet the point of deliberation (...) need not be epistemic. Instead, it can lie in purely procedural values such as respect, equality, and freedom. Proceduralists can thus accept that deliberation aims at truth without conceding that its justification must be epistemic. (shrink)

In this paper, we argue that multispecies justice should be able to integrate diverse ontologies, especially relational ontologies that emphasize relationships between human and more-than-human beings. After reviewing three existing accounts, we develop an approach to interspecies deliberation that includes plants. We provide an outline of the deliberative procedure, discuss participation requirements, risks, an alternative deliberative paradigm, and the role of transdisciplinary research. Two case studies, drawing on socio-ecological and ecosystem perspectives, inform our analysis. Based on them, we propose a (...) procedural, meliorist, and situated account of multispecies justice through interspecies deliberation that can inform decision-making in multispecies contexts. (shrink)

What economic system does a Kantian ideal of freedom entail? In Living with the Invisible Hand, Waheed Hussain argues it entails intermediated capitalism. Here, I investigate these arguments within the framework of a Kantian theory of right. I sketch a Kantian theory of equal democratic government where we have the right to make together through equal democratic processes decisions that structure our rightful relationships with one another. I argue that any plausible Kantian view of the natural determinacy of property rights (...) justifies extensive government intervention in the economy, creating space to argue for alternative economic systems such as intermediated capitalism. (shrink)

In this paper, I ask three questions of the liberal. In each, I fill in philosophical detail around a certain sort of complaint raised in current public debates about their position. In the first, I probe the limits of the liberal's tolerance for civil disobedience; in the second, I ask how the liberal can adjudicate the most divisive moral disputes of the age; and, in the third, I suggest the liberal faces a problem when there is substantial disagreement about the (...) boundaries of the rational and the reasonable. (shrink)

Many scientists, philosophers, and commentators of science have argued that science ought to made responsive to the public, or ought to be “democratized”. This chapter begins by showing that the case for making science responsive to the public compares favorably to the case for making other critical institutions - such as a society’s educational or health care system - responsive to the public. It then shows several ways that science is not currently responsive to the public. It concludes by discussing (...) three unresolved philosophical questions that must be answered in order to determine what it would mean for science to be appropriately responsive to the public. The first comes from the importance of looking at science as a complex system; the second and third arise from considering diversity within the public and within the scientific community, respectively. (shrink)

I review Alex Guerrero's Lottocracy: Democracy with Elections focusing on its central argument: elections can no longer achieve the things we want from political institutions while lottocracy can. I argue Guerrero book is extremely impressive in its detail and ingenuity in thinking through lottocratic institutions, but is less conclusive in showing that elections are the ultimate culprit of the problems he identifies, which weakens his case that only lottocracy can solve the problems plaguing electoral democracies. Regardless, the book is essential (...) reading for future democratic theory. (shrink)

Democratic deliberation about health policy requires, as one of its inputs, ethical judgments from members of the public. These judgments may, however, be biased and unreliable—they may be systematically distorted by framing and emotion effects, by the effects of self‐interest, and by a whole host of other cognitive and affective biases. Supposing we find evidence of biased ethical judgments, can we deal with these judgments in ways that promote reliability while approximating, as far as possible, the moral and political ideals (...) of deliberation? In this paper, I explore this question by outlining and evaluating three respectful debiasing methods, which aim to mitigate bias but in a morally and politically respectful way. In brief, the methods are: (1) Improving the conditions of elicitation but accepting whatever judgments that result, (2) Suggesting to specific members of the public that they may be biased and leaving them to decide whether to debias, and (3) Surveying the public's standards for bias and applying these standards to their ethical judgments. (shrink)

The 2003 complete collection of The Far Side memorialized both the cartoon as well as the printed newspaper context in which it was initially published. While prominent theorists of the public sphere have downplayed the importance of both humour and religion, Gary Larson persistently intertwined them in playful, thought-provoking ways. Moreover, his representation of monstrous encounters provided a theme rich with religious significance. Through it, he took on topics such as God, the gods, theodicy, the afterlife, and a range of (...) biblical characters. In sum, attention to religious themes depicted in The Far Side’s cartoon form highlights its capacity to inspire public imagination about religion in our increasingly divided societies. (shrink)

Democratic competition is often analogised to market competition, where parallel efforts to satisfy preferences produce efficient outcomes—namely, parallel competition. A contrasting model is offered by adversarial legal systems, where social benefits stem from structured mutual interference between opposing sides—namely, friction competition. These models rely on distinct mechanisms, each effective under different conditions. This chapter argues that while both are essential to democracy, contemporary theorists and reformers systematically over-emphasise the parallel model. This imbalance distorts the structure of democratic competition; from constitutional (...) design and voting rules to campaign strategy and the media environment. The chapter also highlights how the value of friction is increasingly discounted not only in democratic politics, but also within legal systems and market economies. In short, democratic institutions need more—not less—structured and beneficial forms of friction. (shrink)

Democracy and Competition sets out to reframe the role of competition in democratic theory. Competition is the defining feature of modern democratic politics. On the dominant account of 'competitive democracy', competition is framed as electoral competition. This framing is shared by both defenders and critics of the dominant model, who then argue whether democracy needs more or less (of this kind of) competition. However, the contributions to this volume highlight the diversity of concepts, sites, and modes of competition within democratic (...) politics. They ask: when, where, and what kind of competition we need in democracies today, what purposes these varied forms of competition serve, and what kinds of competition threaten democracy. This volume aims to set a new research agenda for democratic theorists of all stripes, while also making arguments about competition and institutional design that are relevant to empirical political science, legal scholarship, and studies of communication. (shrink)

The student movement in Serbia employs a repertoire of political actions that transcend conventional political participation in electoral democracies, including reliance on direct and deliberative decision-making, active resistance to recognizable leaders, and distancing from political parties. This paper examines the hypothesis that the mode of student organization reflects an implicit aspiration for alternative democratic models at the national level. We present results from a survey (N=274) conducted among students involved in faculty blockades during 2024-2025, measuring attitudes towards representative and direct (...) democracy. Findings show strong criticism of representative democracy, moderately positive perceptions of direct democracy, and recognition of its limitations. We argue that lottocracy, a system of randomly selected legislatures, represents a promising democratic innovation that responds to students’ critique of representative democracy while addressing perceived limitations of direct democracy. (shrink)

This chapter surveys the four main contemporary theories of democracy. First is democratic elitism, developed mostly by Schumpeter and Downs. Elitism assumes that citizens are apathetic and politically incompetent, seeing democracy as a method for periodically selecting the ruling elites. Second is liberal pluralism, typically associated with Dahl, among others. Liberal pluralism sees democracy as competition among rival factions, calling for institutions that prevent the tyranny of any minority over the others. Third is populism (or radical democracy), chiefly defended by (...) Laclau and Mouffe. Populists believe that social identities are malleable and rational agreements unattainable, which leads them to see democracy as a struggle to rhetorically create a popular identity. Finally, deliberative democracy, pioneered by Habermas, holds that political power must be justifiable to all and proposes that democracy should be a process in which citizens exchange arguments to determine the most acceptable policies. (shrink)

Los llamados minipúblicos son instituciones de participación política. Estos entornos de gobernanza se conforman a partir de la selección de una muestra estadísticamente representativa que refleja las características y diversidad de la ciudadanía. Para llegar a dicha muestra se recurre normalmente a fórmulas casi aleatorias, incluyendo el sorteo. Se obtiene así un patrón acorde a la sociedad civil.

The following essay argues that Shūsaku Endō’s 1966 novel Silence, elucidates a corrective to pragmatist deliberative philosophy. First, it begins with the book’s protagonist Rodrigues in his eventual role evaluating banned Christian objects to prevent them from entering seventeenth century Japan. While these actions present a model of a dejected, apostate padre, they also model his silent acknowledgement of suffering. Second, Endō’s narrative does not aim to explain the suffering its characters experience. Instead, it draws its readers into a practical (...) concern for what Ludwig Wittgenstein referred to as their form of life. Film adaptations highlight the challenges of interpreting religious examples by including artworks that defy easy apprehension. Third, throughout Silence the story navigates the gap between Rodrigues’s visceral suffering and divine silence. In so doing, it exemplifies Simone Weil’s notion of embodied affliction. To fully appreciate such experiences, Weil suggests that the scope of affliction must include divine silence. The desire for God arises in response. A similar contrast can be seen between the characters’ different dispositions towards keeping quiet. In sum, the essay contends that when immanent suffering is inevitable, practices of embodied silence can be the only way to speak. (shrink)

Deliberative democracy theories emphasise the importance of communicative engagement in civic opinion formation. Therefore, civic education should enable students with the skills to participate in deliberative processes, fostering argumentation literacy understood as both a linguistic and a political competence. This study examines how a teaching unit designed to promote transactive dialogue among 8th and 9th-grade (ISCED 2) students influences the quality of classroom debates. The unit combined a modified version of Gronostay’s argumentation training, teacher-designed thematic input, and a structured fishbowl (...) debate format. Conducted during the 2022–2023 school year, the study involved four experienced teachers and their respective classes. Despite identical training and debate structures, the quality of student debates varied substantially across classrooms. All discussions began with one-sided arguments, but some evolved into extended critical and responsive exchanges, reflecting a higher level of transactive dialogue. This variation may be attributed to differences in the thematic input provided by each teacher, suggesting that the nature of didactic scaffolding merits further investigation. (shrink)

Democratic discourse is increasingly strained by social risk and deep ideological division, leaving citizens reluctant to engage across disagreement even when such engagement is essential for collective epistemic progress. In this paper, we argue that large language models (LLMs) can function as tools for navigating difficult disagreements by creating low-risk epistemic spaces, or environments where agents can test reasons, rehearse arguments, and explore opposing perspectives without incurring the interpersonal costs that often derail human-to-human exchange. We distinguish between two forms of (...) difficult disagreement – socially fraught and deep – and show how LLMs may mitigate the epistemic hazards of each. In socially fraught contexts, LLMs can reduce reputational and emotional vulnerability while redistributing epistemic labor that otherwise disproportionately falls on the marginalized. In cases of deep disagreement, LLMs can flag divergent frameworks, scaffold meta-cognitive awareness, and mediate the transfer of information without triggering individually rational incentives to misinform. While engaging with LLMs will never be a proper substitute for democratic dialogue, we contend that carefully designed LLMs can lower the barriers to more productive engagement across difference under non-ideal conditions. (shrink)

Deliberative democracy is increasingly criticised as out of touch with the realities of partisan politics. This paper considers the rise of fake and hyperpartisan news as one source of this scepticism. While popular accounts often blame such content on citizens’ political biases and motivated reasoning, I survey the empirical evidence and argue that it does not support strong claims about the inability of citizens to live up to deliberative ideals. Instead, much of this research is shown to support the deliberative (...) capacities of citizens and points to their potential in helping to reduce the spread of false and misleading content. (shrink)

Much work in feminist social epistemology shares the basic assumption that ignorance generated by silencing (and related phenomena) is undesirable. While true in many contexts, I depart from that consensus, introducing and offering a philosophical account of a social epistemic practice that I term ‘hushing-up.’ This practice has emerged organically in response and in resistance to sectarian bigotry in Northern Ireland (NI), and contributes to post-conflict transitions away from social and political polarisation and its derivative harms to individuals and collectives. (...) In spaces where hushing-up is deployed, ignorance of peoples’ community background is intentionally cultivated as a strategy in opposition to bigotry, while bigoted or sectarian displays incur social costs. Positioning hushing-up against existing accounts of political ignorance, and contributing to the idea of an epistemology of ignorance, I distinguish between performative partisanship (involving ignorance driven by social rewards for showing group allegiance) and pressured partisanship (involving ignorance driven by the avoidance of social sanctions for displaying indicators of disloyalty to a group). On the account I defend, shifts in social norms are central to addressing some forms of harmful ignorance. I argue that hushing-up succeeds in doing this in two ways: first, by reducing the rationality of pressured partisanship by providing alternative social support to that provided in polarised social spaces such that the cost of dissent is lowered; and secondly, by disincentivising performative partisanship through increasing the difficulty of identifying targets and ensuring that bigoted displays are met with disapproval in spaces where that norm is in force. (shrink)

Este livro pretende explorar os pressupostos, assim como a potência dos debates travados por Jürgen Habermas com os principais pensadores e pensadoras contemporâneos acerca da força e dos limites das democracias liberais. Como compreender as alterações dos pressupostos da teoria habermasiana ao longo do tempo? Seria possível abri-la à dimensão dos afetos e do corpo? Qual o saldo do debate com feministas? É possível decolonizar ou sociologizar sua perspectiva? Ou será que, em lugar de reformular, devemos desfazer o modelo de (...) Habermas? Em tempos de crescimento de extremismos, o leitor será convidado a engajar-se em uma conversa necessária sobre os impasses e possíveis saídas atuais para a democracia. (shrink)

At the heart of Habermas’ formal pragmatics and his understanding of modernity lies the imperative for intersubjectivity, which shapes his approach to democracy. However, instead of speculating about some of his theoretical proposals, in order to strengthen his theory of modern democracy, Habermas integrates deliberative democracy into his wider theory strategically rather than reflexively that ought to provide theoretical and practical consolidation. This is justified by his theoretical commitment to grounding modernity in the conditions of intersubjective communication. To demonstrate this, (...) I deconstruct Habermas’ key theoretical propositions through the perspective of intersubjectivity, identifying three idealized models: the public sphere, discourse ethics, and universal pragmatics, that serve as a foundation for his democratic theory. This way, I aim to appoint to certain “blind spots” in Habermas’ philosophy, points of theoretical tension that, rather than being resolved, appear to intensify when his theory enters the domain of practical discourse, especially in relation to the transnational model of deliberative democracy. (shrink)

The daily increase of authoritarian leaders, totalitarian reforms, and nationalistic sen timent worldwide creates an imperative even for those typically confined to the realm of theory to search for practicable solutions. With his characteristic flare for inconsistency and ostensible pessimism, Jean-Jacques Rousseau strikes even careful readers as a dead-end in this regard. Nevertheless, Rousseau’s writings on civic education and civil religion provide an as-yet untapped resource, offering both a prescient diagnosis of our current predicament and realistic prescriptions as to how (...) we might counteract it. And he is not alone: hitherto all but ignored by scholars, Rousseau’s thoughts on education bear a strik ing resemblance to those of John Dewey regarding experimental inquiry and Paolo Freire’s concerning liberatory pedagogy. For, though hailing from different continents and disparate traditions, all three emphasize that the slide towards tyranny is either en sured or prevented based on a people’s (in)ability to distinguish between nationalism and patriotism. (shrink)

Critical Review of Lynch's book, focusing on his pragmatic theory of truth and heterogenous definition of democracy.

According to supporters of epistemic democracy, the most important virtue of democratic forms of government is that they provide the best method for determining correct public policies. On their view, this does not primarily result from the fact that any policy a democratic government enacts will reflect conjoined citizen interests and so be more likely to satisfy them, but from the fact that, as they believe Condorcet has demonstrated, majorities are more likely to get things right than any minority is. (...) I argue that any such view fails to capture what is usually meant by self-government, and that, due to this critical shortcoming, epistemic rationales for democracy should be abandoned in favor of voluntaristic, aggregative theories of the kind that were popular prior to mid-20th Century objections generally claiming either that collective preference aggregations are necessarily incoherent or that pervasive injustices must result from unconstrained, and hence tyrannical, majorities. (shrink)

This study analyzes a specific cognitive bias and argumentative fallacy for which the author introduces the original term polarization error. It is a faulty abductive inference in which an agent interprets a disagreement at the non-axiological level (instrumental or definitional) as a fundamental disagreement at the axiological level. The aim of this paper is not to deny the existence of genuine value conflicts, but to demonstrate how pseudo-value disputes imperceptibly intermingle with legitimate conflicts in a polarized society. The author argues (...) that the essence of this error lies in the projection of one's own knowledge onto the opponent and the attribution of bad faith, which leads to a form of epistemic misrecognition (in the sense of A. Honneth). Failure to recognize this type of dispute transforms political agonism into destructive antagonism and sets in motion the polarization spiral. The study illustrates this mechanism through examples from contemporary public discourse and proposes a corrective through the Principle of Charity as a necessary condition for functional agonism. (shrink)

What should be news in a democracy? This article offers a deliberative answer to this question by developing a deliberative account of newsworthiness. Drawing from the deliberative theory of democracy, I define the general criterion of deliberative newsworthiness as a mandate that commands journalists to seek, select, and report the contents that are most capable of stimulating high-quality deliberation. I then develop a two-step process through which journalists may apply this criterion. First, journalists should select the most newsworthy issues, which (...) are those that most profoundly affect (or are likely to affect) how just our society is. Second, journalists should select the most newsworthy facts and the most newsworthy arguments, both of which are to be chosen on the basis of their capacity to promote quality deliberation about the newsworthy issues. Ultimately, what should be news is a context-dependent issue that only journalists can decide, but deliberative newsworthiness is the normative criterion that journalists should follow when making these decisions – at least, if they want to produce the news that deliberative democracy needs. (shrink)

The Book of kOA lays out a manifesto and a systems design for a global, open, and merit-based civic platform—Konnaxion—that turns knowledge into a public utility and translates agreement into action. Grounded in principles such as radical lucidity, transparency in governance / privacy of person, inclusive social mobility, ecological responsibility, and cooperation before competition, the book specifies a modular architecture with four interoperable modules: KonnectED (open education), keenKonnect (collaborative development), Ethikos (merit-weighted deliberation and voting), and Kreative (cultural commons). A cross-cutting (...) backbone, EkoH, provides multidimensional merit, certification, and legitimacy across modules. Use-cases include education reform, justice and prison rehabilitation kiosks, open-knowledge “Kristal Farms,” and governance pilots that combine public participation with expertise via weighted votes. The work argues that when information is open and merit is visible, collaboration outperforms zero-sum competition, enabling ethical, resilient progress at scale. This is both political philosophy (institutional design, legitimacy, equity) and philosophy of technology (AI governance, platform ethics), offering a design-level response to contemporary fragmentation and institutional drag. (shrink)

The central argument of these pages is that the way I propose understanding mini-publics—that they are institutions that forge, and function based on citizens’ political self-perception—finds theoretical support in (the kind of scientific evidence produced by) the research conducted by sociologist Barbara Risman in the early 1990s on gender and race as a social structure. This argument is relevant from an ethical-political perspective because it brings us closer to the type of theoretical problems related to the analysis of political normativity (...) when we access the interpretation of testimonies and experiences of political participation. (shrink)

Engaging the public with science is not an easy task. When presented, scientific findings, public health recommendations, and other scientific information filter through the personal values, beliefs, and biases of members of the public. Science communicators must contend with these differences in order to be effective in cultivating a public understanding of science. Given the importance of scientific understanding for living well in a complex world, increasing science understanding through science engagement is imperative. The field of public engagement with science (...) is dichotomized by a public information deficit approach and a contextualist approach. The deficit approach prizes the factual content of science, its epistemic authority, and its communication to the public while the contextualist approach recognizes the sociocultural embeddedness of science in society, how science is received by publics, and how local knowledges intersect with science. I contend both approaches are incomplete and I put forth a synthesis. My approach, the participant-centered model of science engagement, incorporates the factual content of science and its epistemic authority, but in a way that is sensitive to context. I argue for a deliberative democratic approach to public engagement with science and articulate a model inspired by learner-centered approaches to teaching in the formal education literature. I outline and assess six participant-centered strategies along with recommendations for particular practices associated with each. (shrink)

In Beyond Empathy and Inclusion: The Challenge of Listening in Deliberative Democracy, Mary F. Scudder defends a listening-based approach to deliberative democracy. On this account, democratic legitimacy requires that citizens listen to each other’s deliberative contributions to give them fair consideration. She opposes this listening-based approach to a recent “empathic turn” in deliberative democratic theory, which emphasizes the importance of imaginative perspective-taking in democratic deliberation. Scudder develops an incisive critique of relying on empathy in democratic deliberation. According to her argument, (...) our capacity to empathize is severely limited, and empathy cannot replace, but only distort listening. This argument suggests that we should listen rather than empathize in democratic deliberation. In this paper, we challenge the implicit assumption that empathy and listening must be regarded as mutually exclusive alternatives. We argue that empathy still has an important place within a listening-centric approach to democracy because empathy can improve listening broadly understood, according to its own inherent aim of ensuring fair consideration. Specifically, we identify three constructive roles that empathy can play in facilitating democratic listening: it can help us to understand what someone has said, see where someone is coming from, and promote mutual understanding. We argue that recognizing these constructive roles for empathy in democratic deliberation is compatible with acknowledging empathy’s limits and accepting that we should sometimes prefer listening without empathy. Ceasing to conceive of empathy and listening as mutually exclusive options opens up new questions and we close by discussing some potential directions of future study. (shrink)

According to the informational model, journalism’s primary function is to provide the public with information and help it acquire knowledge and understanding. Opinion journalism appears to conflict with this model. Although it constitutes a major part of the news media, its role remains poorly defined, and many view it with suspicion. This article argues that opinion journalism serves an important epistemic function that is integral to the informational model: to facilitate appropriate uncertainty by helping audiences form epistemically valuable attitudes toward (...) unsettled questions of public importance. I examine the multiple societal roles of opinion journalism—including policy advising and facilitating public deliberation—and highlight tensions that can arise in practice between these roles and the role of facilitating appropriate uncertainty. Finally, I suggest that greater transparency about both the epistemic status of the claims discussed in opinion pieces and the purpose of opinion journalism may mitigate these tensions. (shrink)

The following essay evaluates the concept of the trace within extended mind (EM) theory. It begins by differentiating Andy Clark’s complementarity from several competing models. Second, it demonstrates how an undeveloped concept of the trace arises in Clark’s debate with internalist critics. In response, I introduce Paul Ricoeur’s metaphor of the imprint in Memory, History, Forgetting. Fourth, the recent debate about the plastic trace will be applied in this context. In so doing, the legacy of Jacques Derrida will be rehabilitated. (...) I conclude with EM’s renewed promise to model deliberations between religiously diverse people. (shrink)