Validity and scope as criteria for deliberative epistemic quality across pluralism

References

• Cavell, S. 1969. Must We Mean What We Say?. NY: Charles Scribner's Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics. Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, J. S., and S. Niemeyer. 2006 .”Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals”. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 634–649.10.1111/ajps.2006.50.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ebeling, M. 2017. “Is Moral Deference Reasonably Acceptable?” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 296–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. 1997 .”Beyond Fairness and Democracy: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority”. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited by J. Bohman and W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 173–204.
   Google Scholar
• Femia, J. 1996. “Complexity and Deliberative Democracy.” Inquiry 39 (3–4): 359–397.10.1080/00201749608602427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friberg-Fernros, H., and J. K. Schaffer. 2017. “Assessing the Epistemic Quality of Democratic Decision-Making in Terms of Adequate Support for Conclusions.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 251–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gadamer, H.-G. 1975. Truth and Method. New York: Seabury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gaus, G. 1997. “Looking for the Best and Finding None Better: The Epistemic Case for Deliberative Democracy.” The Modern Schoolman 74: 277–284.10.5840/schoolman199774425
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Translated by T. McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1987. The Theory of Communicative Action Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Translated by T. McCarthy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, translated by C. Lenhardt and S. W. Nicholson. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1998. “Social Action, Purposive Activity and Communication.” In On the Pragmatics of Communication, edited by M. Cooke, 105–182. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knops, A. 2007. “Agonism as Deliberation—On Mouffe’s Theory of Democracy.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 15 (1): 115–126.10.1111/jopp.2007.15.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knops, A. 2015. “A Strategic-Relational Account of Language Use, Discourse, and Reason.” Critical Discourse Studies 12 (1): 1–19.10.1080/17405904.2014.962069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 1996. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Kuran, Timur. 1998. “Insincere Deliberation and Democratic Failure.” Critical Review 12 (4): 529–544.10.1080/08913819808443515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2012. “Democratic Reason: The Mechanisms of Collective Intelligence in Politics.” In Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms, edited by H. Landemore and J. Elster, 251–289. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511846427
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2017. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 277–295.
   Google Scholar
• Martí, J. L. 2006. “The Epistemic Conception of Deliberative Democracy Defended: Reasons, Rightness and Equal Political Autonomy.” In Deliberative Democracy and its Discontents, edited by S. Besson and J. L. Martí, 27–56. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Niemeyer, S., and J. S. Dryzek. 2007. “The Ends of Deliberation: Meta-consensus and Intersubjective Rationality as Ideal Outcomes.” Swiss Political Science Review 13 (4): 497–526.10.1002/spsr.2007.13.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pitkin, H. F. 1993. Wittgenstein and Justice: On the Significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for Social and Political Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. 1966. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Tully, J. 1989. “Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy: Understanding Practices of Critical Reflection.” Political Theory 17: 172–204.10.1177/0090591789017002002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. 1963. Philosophical Investigations. Translated by G. E. M Anascombe. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” In Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by S. Benhabib, 120–135. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Young, I. M. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar