Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy

References

• Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme 3 (1–2): 8–22.10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, Hannah. 1993. Between past and Future: Eight Exercises in Political Thought, 227–264. New York: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, Daniel A. 2015. The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400865505
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, Jason. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400882939
   Google Scholar
• Buchstein, Hubertus, and Dirk Jörke. 2012. “The Argumentative Turn toward Deliberative Democracy: Habermas’ Contribution and the Foucauldian Critique.” In The Argumentative Turn Revisited, edited by F. Fischer and H. Gottweis, 271–304. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822395362
   Google Scholar
• Caplan, Bryan. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chambers, Simone. 2017. “Balancing Epistemic Equality and Equal Participation in a System Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 266–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 1986. “An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.” Ethics 97 (1): 26–38.10.1086/292815
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 1993. “Moral Pluralism and Political Consensus.” In The Idea of Democracy, edited by David Copp, Jean Hampton, and John Roemer, 270–291. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 2009. “Truth and Public Reason.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (1): 2–42.10.1111/papa.2009.37.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua. 2012. “Truth and Public Reason.” In Truth and Democracy, edited by Jeremy Elkins and Andrew Norris, 217–250. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke, Maeve. 2000. “Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy.” Political Studies 48: 947–969.10.1111/1467-9248.00289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 1997. “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority.” In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by J. Bohman and W. Regh, 173–204. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 1998. “The Insularity of the Reasonable: Why Political Liberalism Must Admit the Truth.” Ethics 108 (2): 252–275.10.1086/233804
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2009. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400831548
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2012. “The Truth in Political Liberalism.” In Truth and Democracy, edited by Jeremy Elkins and Andrew Norris, 251–271. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, Henry, and Cozma Shalizi. 2012. “Cognitive Democracy.” Working Paper. Accessed April 28, 2016. http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/23/cognitive-democracy/
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, Frank, and Herbert Gottweis. 2012. The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Public Policy as Communicative Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.10.1215/9780822395362
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, James. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Føllesdal, Andreas. 2017. “Tracking Justice Democratically.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 324–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert E., and Christian List. 2001. “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (3): 277–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy?. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400826339
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1990. “Discourse Ethics: Notes on a Program of Justification.” In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, translated by Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholson, 43–115. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. “Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 92 (3): 109–131.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen. 2006. “Political Communication in Media Society: Does Democracy Still Enjoy an Epistemic Dimension? The Impact of Normative Theory on Empirical Research.” Communication Theory 16 (4): 411–426.10.1111/comt.2006.16.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holst, Catrine, and Anders Molander. 2017. “Public deliberation and the fact of expertise: making experts accountable.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 235–250.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingham, Sean. 2013. “Disagreement and Epistemic Arguments for Democracy.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 12 (2): 136–155.10.1177/1470594X12460642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jörke, Dirk. 2010. “The Epistemic Turn of Critical Theory: Implications for Deliberative Politics and Policy-making.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (4): 440–446.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, Jamie. 2011. Framing Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, Jack, and Jim Johnson. 2011. The Priority of Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knops, A. 2017. “Validity and Scope as Criteria for Deliberative Epistemic Quality across Pluralism.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 340–350.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lafont, Cristine. 2014. “Deliberative, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-Publics Shape Public Policy?” The Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (1): 40–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2012. “Democratic Reason: The Mechanisms of Collective Intelligence in Politics.” In Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, edited by Hélène Landemore and Jon Elster, 251–289. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.10.1017/CBO9780511846427
   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. 2014a. “Democracy as Heuristic: The Ecological Rationality of Political Equality.” The Good Society 23 (2): 160–178.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2014b. “Yes, We Can (Make It up on Volume): Answers to Critics.” Critical Review 26 (1–2): 184–237.10.1080/08913811.2014.940780
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène, and Scott E. Page. 2015. “Deliberation and Disagreement: Problem Solving, Prediction, and Positive Dissensus.” Politics, Philosophy & Economics 14 (3): 229–254.10.1177/1470594X14544284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch, Michael. 2009. Truth as One and Many. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199218738.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• MacGilvray, Eric. 2014. “Democratic Doubts: Pragmatism and the Epistemic Defense of Democracy.” Journal of Political Philosophy 22 (1): 105–123.10.1111/jopp.2014.22.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, Jane, James Bohman, Simone Chambers, Thomas Christiano, Archon Fung, John R. Parkinson, Dennis F. 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 Mansbridge, 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139178914
   Google Scholar
• Martì, José Luis. 2006. “The Epistemic Conception of Deliberative Democracy Defended.” In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents: National and Post-national Challenges, edited by S. Besson and J. L. Martì, 27–56. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Min, John B. 2016. “Politics Must Get It Right Sometimes: Reply to Muirhead.” Critical Review 28: 404–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Misak, Cheryl. 2004. Truth and the End of Inquiry: A Perceian Account of Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199270597.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Misak, Cheryl, and Robert B. Talisse. 2014. “Debate: Pragmatist Epistemology and Democratic Theory: A Reply to Eric MacGilvray.” Journal of Political Philosophy 22 (3): 366–376.10.1111/jopp.2014.22.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muirhead, Russel. 2014. “The Politics of Getting It Right.” Critical Review 26 (1–2): 115–128.10.1080/08913811.2014.907045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, Simon, and John S. Dryzek. 2007. “The Ends of Deliberation: Meta-consensus and Inter-subjective Rationality as Ideal Outcomes.” Swiss Political Science Review 13 (4): 497–526.10.1002/spsr.2007.13.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ober, Josiah. 2010. Democracy and Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Page, Scott E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Palumbo, Antonino. 2012. “Epistemic Turn or Democratic U-turn? On The Tension Between Philosophical Reasoning And Political Action in Deliberative Democracy.” Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1987. “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7 (1): 1–25.10.1093/ojls/7.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1993a. “The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus.” In The Idea of Democracy, edited by David Copp, Jean Hampton, and John Roemer, 245–269. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1993b. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1995. “Political Liberalism: Reply to Habermas.” The Journal of Philosophy 92 (3): 132–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1999. Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Raz, Joseph. 1990. “Facing Diversity: The Case for Epistemic Abstinence.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 19 (1): 3–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santoro, Daniele, and Federica Liveriero. 2017. “Proceduralism and the Epistemic Dilemma of Supreme Courts.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 310–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2013. Counting the Many: The Origins and Limits of Supermajority Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139013970
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer, Johan and Henrik Friberg-Fernros. 2017. “Assessing the Epistemic Quality of Democratic Decisions.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 251–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmons, A. John. 2000. Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625152
   Google Scholar
• Steenbergen, Marco, et al. 2003. “Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index.” Comparative European Politics 1: 21–48.10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002
   Google Scholar
• Talisse, Robert. 2009. Democracy and Moral Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511635281
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, Nadia. 2014. Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674726383
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, Nadia, and Maria Paul Saffon. 2013. “Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty.” Political Theory 41 (3): 441–481.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viehoff, Daniel. 2016. “Authority and Expertise.” Journal of Political Philosophy 24 (4): 406–426.10.1111/jopp.2016.24.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waldron, Jeremy. 1999a. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262138.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, Jeremy. 1999b. The Dignity of Legislation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621987
   Google Scholar
• Wyss, Dominik, Simon Beste, and André Bächtiger. 2015. “A Decline in the Quality of Debate? The Evolution of Cognitive Complexity in Swiss Parliamentary Debates on Immigration (1968–2014).” Swiss Political Science Review 21 (4): 636–653.10.1111/spsr.12179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zerilli, Linda M. G. 2016. A Democratic Theory of Judgment. Chicago: Chicago University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226398037.001.0001
   Google Scholar