Assessing the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making in terms of adequate support for conclusions

References

• Aikin, Scott F. 2008. “Three Objections to the Epistemic Theory of Argument Rebutted.” Argumentation and Advocacy 44: 130–142.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme 3 (1–2): 8–22. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8.
   Google Scholar
• Arneson, Richard J. 2003. “Defending the Purely Instrumental Account of Democratic Legitimacy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (1): 122–132.10.1111/1467-9760.00170
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bächtiger, André, Susumu Shikano, Seraina Pedrini, and Mirjam Ryser. 2009. “Measuring Deliberation 2.0: Standards, Discourse Types, and Sequentialization.” ECPR General Conference. Potsdam. http://www.scribd.com/doc/63594625/Measuring-Deliberation-2-0.
   Google Scholar
• Bench-Capon, T. J. M., and Paul E. Dunne. 2007. “Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence.” Artificial Intelligence 171 (10–15): 619–641. doi:10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beste, Simon. 2013. “Contemporary Trends of Deliberative Research: Synthesizing a New Study Agenda.” Journal of Public Deliberation 9 (2). http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol9/iss2/art1.
   Google Scholar
• Biro, John, and Harvey Siegel. 2006. “In Defense of the Objective Epistemic Approach to Argumentation.” Philosophy Articles and Papers. Jan. http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/philosophy_articles/13.
   Google Scholar
• Black, Laura W., Stephanie Burkhalter, John Gastil, and Jennifer Stromer-Galley. 2011. “Methods for Analyzing and Measuring Group Deliberation.” In Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, edited by E. Page Bucy and R. Lance Holbert, 323–345. Communications Series. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, James. 2007. “Political Communication and the Epistemic Value of Diversity: Deliberation and Legitimation in Media Societies.” Communication Theory 17 (4): 348–355. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00301.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caluwaerts, Didier, and Juan Ugarriza. 2012. “Favorable Conditions to Epistemic Validity in Deliberative Experiments: A Methodological Assessment.” Journal of Public Deliberation 8 (1). http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol8/iss1/art6.
   Google Scholar
• Cappella, Joseph N., Vincent Price, and Lilach Nir. 2002. “Argument Repertoire as a Reliable and Valid Measure of Opinion Quality: Electronic Dialogue during Campaign 2000.” Political Communication 19 (1): 73–93. doi:10.1080/105846002317246498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, Simone. 2009. “Rhetoric and the Public Sphere Has Deliberative Democracy Abandoned Mass Democracy?” Political Theory 37 (3): 323–350. doi:10.1177/0090591709332336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, Simone. 2017. “Balancing Epistemic Quality and Equal Participation in a System Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, Maeve. 2000. “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 48 (5): 947–969. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curato, Nicole. 2012. “A Sequential Analysis of Democratic Deliberation.” Acta Politica 47 (4): 423–442. doi:10.1057/ap.2012.15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutwin, David. 2003. “The Character of Deliberation: Equality, Argument, and the Formation of Public Opinion.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 15 (3): 239–264. doi:10.1093/ijpor/15.3.239.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ennis, Robert H. 1982. “Identifying Implicit Assumptions.” Synthese 51 (1): 61–86. doi:10.1007/BF00413849.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, Richard. 1993. Reason and Argument. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Friberg-Fernros, Henrik, and Douglas Brommesson. 2013. “The Responsibility to Protect – An Incoherent Doctrine?” International Politics 50 (4): 600–622. doi:10.1057/ip.2013.16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friberg-Fernros, Henrik, and Johan Karlsson Schaffer. 2014. “The Consensus Paradox: Does Deliberative Agreement Impede Rational Discourse?” Political Studies 62 (S1): 99–116. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaus, Gerald. 2011. “On Seeking the Truth (Whatever that is) through Democracy: Estlund’s Case for the Qualified Epistemic Claim.” Ethics 121 (2): 270–300. doi:10.1086/658141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert E. 2000. “Democratic Deliberation within.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 29 (1): 81–109.10.1111/papa.2000.29.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert E., and Simon Niemeyer. 2003. “When Does Deliberation Begin? Internal Reflection versus Public Discussion in Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 51 (4): 627–649. doi:10.1111/j.0032-3217.2003.00450.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1971. “Vorbereitende Bemerkungen Zu Einer Theorie Der Kommunikativen Kompetenz.” In Oder Sozialtechnologie: Was Leistet Die Systemforschung?, by Niklas Luhmann and Jürgen Habermas, edited by Theorie Der Gesellschaft, 101–141. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
   Google Scholar
• Hartmann, Stephan, and Jan Sprenger. 2012. “Judgment Aggregation and the Problem of Tracking the Truth.” Synthese 187 (1): 209–221. doi:10.1007/s11229-011-0031-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Himmelroos, Staffan, and Henrik Serup Christensen. 2014. “Deliberation and Opinion Change: Evidence from a Deliberative Mini-public in Finland.” Scandinavian Political Studies 37 (1): 41–60. doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingham, Sean. 2013. “Disagreement and Epistemic Arguments for Democracy.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 12 (2): 136–155. doi:10.1177/1470594X12460642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Aleixandre, María Pilar, and Sibel Erduran. 2007. “Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview.” In Argumentation in Science Education, edited by Sibel Erduran and María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre, 3–27. Science & Technology Education Library 35. Springer Netherlands. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-6670-2_1.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Ralph. 1999. “The Relation between Formal and Informal Logic.” Argumentation 13 (3): 265–274. doi:10.1023/A:1007789101256.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Ralph, and J. Anthony Blair. 1994. Logical Self-defense. U.S. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Knops, Andrew. 2006. “Delivering Deliberation’s Emancipatory Potential.” Political Theory 34 (5): 594–623. doi:10.1177/0090591706290780.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knops, Andrew. 2017. “Validity and Scope as Criteria for Deliberative Epistemic Quality across Pluralism.” Social Epistemology.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2017. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 30.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène, and Hugo Mercier. 2012. “Talking It out with Others Vs. Deliberation within and the Law of Group Polarization: Some Implications of the Argumentative Theory of Reasoning for Deliberative Democracy.” Análise Social 47 (205): 910–934.
   Google Scholar
• List, Christian. 2004. “On the Significance of the Absolute Margin.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (3): 521–544. doi:10.1093/bjps/55.3.521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, Christian, and Robert E. Goodin. 2001. “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (3): 277–306. doi:10.1111/1467-9760.00128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, Christopher. 2013. “No Representation without Justification? Appraising Standards of Justification in European Parliament Debates.” Journal of European Public Policy 20 (2): 243–259. doi:10.1080/13501763.2013.746123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lord, Christopher, and Dionysia Tamvaki. 2013. “The Politics of Justification? Applying the ‘Discourse Quality Index’ to the Study of the European Parliament.” European Political Science Review 5 (1): 27–54. doi:10.1017/S1755773911000300.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lumer, Christoph. 2000. “Reductionism in Fallacy Theory.” Argumentation 14 (4): 405–423. doi:10.1023/A:1007809709996.
   Google Scholar
• Lumer, Christoph. 2005. “The Epistemological Theory of Argument – How and Why?” Informal Logic 25 (3). http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/informal_logic/article/view/1135.
   Google Scholar
• Lumer, Christoph. 2011. “Argument Schemes – An Epistemological Approach.” In Argumentation Cognition and Community, edited by Frank Zenker. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Windsor, Ontario.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John Parkinson, Dennis Thompson, and Mark Warren. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by John Parkinson and Jane J. Mansbridge, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139178914
   Google Scholar
• Mill, John Stuart. 1991. “Considerations on Representative Government.” In On Liberty and Other Essays, 203–467. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Misak, Cheryl. 2008. “A Culture of Justification: The Pragmatist’s Epistemic Argument for Democracy.” Episteme 5 (1): 94–105. doi:10.3366/E1742360008000257.
   Google Scholar
• Mochales, Raquel, and Marie-Francine Moens. 2011. “Argumentation Mining.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1007/s10506-010-9104-x.
   Google Scholar
• Monnoyer-Smith, Laurence, and Stéphanie Wojcik. 2012. “Technology and the Quality of Public Deliberation: A Comparison between on and Offline Participation.” International Journal of Electronic Governance 5 (1): 24–49. doi:10.1504/IJEG.2012.047443.
   Google Scholar
• Nanz, Patrizia, and Jens Steffek. 2005. “Assessing the Democratic Quality of Deliberation in International Governance: Criteria and Research Strategies.” Acta Politica 40 (3): 368–383. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neblo, Michael A. 2007. “Family Disputes: Diversity in Defining and Measuring Deliberation.” Swiss Political Science Review 13 (4): 527–557. doi:10.1002/j.1662-6370.2007.tb00088.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, Simon. 2011. “The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-publics.” Politics & Society 39 (1): 103–140. doi:10.1177/0032329210395000.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottonelli, Valeria. 2010. “What Does the Discursive Paradox Really Mean for Democracy?” Political Studies 58 (4): 666–687. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.2010.00821.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinto, Robert. 2001. Argument, Inference, and Dialectic: Collected Papers on Informal Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-94-017-0783-1
   Google Scholar
• Roger, Léa, and Gary S. Schaal. 2013. “The Quality of Deliberation in Two Committees of the European Parliament: The Neglected Influence of the Situational Context and the Policymaking Stage.” Politics and Governance 1 (2): 151–169.10.17645/pag.v1i2.101
   Google Scholar
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1762. “The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right.” http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Saffon, Maria Paula, and Nadia Urbinati. 2013. “Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty.” Political Theory 41 (3): 441–481. doi:10.1177/0090591713476872.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schkade, David, Cass R. Sunstein, and Reid Hastie. 2010. “When Deliberation Produces Extremism.” Critical Review 22 (2–3): 227–252. doi:10.1080/08913811.2010.508634.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, Marco R., André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Jürg Steiner. 2003. “Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index.” Comparative European Politics 1 (1): 21–48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002.
   Google Scholar
• Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli, and Marco R. Steenbergen. 2004. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stromer-Galley, Jennifer. 2007. “Measuring Deliberation’s Content: A Coding Scheme.” Journal of Public Deliberation 3 (1). http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol3/iss1/art12.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, Dennis F. 2008. “Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 497–520. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.081306.070555.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheij, Bart. 2003. “Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2–3): 167–195. doi:10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046008.49443.36.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, Douglas. 2002. “The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste.” Argumentation 16 (4): 473–503. doi:10.1023/A:1021108016075.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, Douglas. 2011. “Argument Mining by Applying Argumentation Schemes.” Studies in Logic 4 (1): 38–64.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, Douglas, and Chris Reed. 2005. “Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.” Synthese 145 (3): 339–370. doi:10.1007/s11229-005-6198-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034
   Google Scholar