Strengthening the Epistemic Case against Epistocracy and for Democracy

References

• Althaus, S. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme 3 (1–2): 8–22. doi:10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8.
   Google Scholar
• Bak-Coleman, J., M. Alfano, W. Barfuss, C. Bergstrom, M. Centeno, I. Couzin, J. Donges, et al. 2021. “Stewardship of Global Collective Behaviour.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (27): e2025764118.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, J. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan, B. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cavalier, D., and E. Kennedy, eds. 2016. The Rightful Place of Science: Citizen Science. Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes, Tempe, AZ.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2012. Is Water H₂o? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. London: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chick, M. 2022.”The Epistemic Value of Testimony.” Contemporary Political Theory 21 (1): 93–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dekker, E, and P. Kuchar. 2020. “The Epistemological Break in Economics: What Does the Public Know About the Economy and What Do Economists Know About the Public?” doi:10.2139/ssrn.3643406.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, J. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. New York: H. Holt.
   Google Scholar
• Epstein, S. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fernandez Pinto, M. 2018. “Democratizing Strategies for Industry-Funded Medical Research: A Cautionary Tale.” Philosophy of Science 85 (5): 882–894. doi:10.1086/699720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frickel, S, S. Gibbon, J. Howard, J. Kempner, G. Ottinger, and D. Hess. 2010. “Undone Science: Charting Social Movement and Civil Society Challenges to Research Agenda Setting.” Science, Technology, and Values 35 (4): 444–473. doi:10.1177/0162243909345836.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fuerstein, M. 2021. “Epistemic Democracy Without Truth: The Deweyan Approach.” Raisons Politiques 81 (1): 81–96. doi:10.3917/rai.081.0081.
   Google Scholar
• Hédoin, C. 2021. “The ‘Epistemic Critique’ of Epistocracy and Its Inadequacy.” Social Epistemology 35 (5): 502–514. doi:10.1080/02691728.2021.1882609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kellert, S., H. Longino, and C. Waters, eds. 2006. Scientific Pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 2001. Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2017. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? the Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 277–295. doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1317868.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Longino, H. 2002. The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McGoey, L. 2020. “Micro-Ignorance and Macro-Ignorance in the Social Sciences.” Social Research 87 (1): 197–217.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottinger, G. 2010. “Buckets of Resistance: Standards and the Effectiveness of Citizen Science.” Science, Technology, and Values 35 (2): 244–270. doi:10.1177/0162243909337121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, S. 2017. The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay off in the Knowledge Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, K. 2017. ”What is the Real Value of Diversity in Organizations? Questioning Our Assumptions.” In The Diversity Bonus, edited by Scott Page, 223–245. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rabeharisoa, V., and M. Callon. 2002. “The Involvement of Patients’ Associations in Research.” International Social Science Journal 54 (171): 57–63. doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00359.
   Google Scholar
• Reiss, J. 2019. “Expertise, Agreement, and the Nature of Social Scientific Facts Or: Against Epistocracy.” Social Epistemology 33 (2): 183–192. doi:10.1080/02691728.2019.1577513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss, J. 2020. “Why Do Experts Disagree?” Critical Review 32 (1–3): 218–241. doi:10.1080/08913811.2020.1872948.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, R., and A. Alexandrova. 2020. “Happiness Economics as Technocracy.” Behavioural Public Policy 4 (2): 236–244. doi:10.1017/bpp.2019.46.
   Google Scholar
• Tardieu B., and J. Tonglet, eds. 2020. Rethinking Our World from the Perspective of Poverty with Joseph Wresinski. Paris: Hermann.
   Google Scholar
• Van Bouwel, J. 2003. “Verklaringspluralisme in de Sociale Wetenschappen (Explanatory Pluralism in the Social Sciences).” Ph.D. thesis, Ghent University.
   Google Scholar
• Van Bouwel, J. 2014. ”Explanatory Strategies Beyond the Individualism/holism Debate.” In Rethinking the Individualism/holism Debate, edited by J. Zahle and F. Collin, 153–175. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Van Bouwel, J. 2022. “How to Deal with Values in Political Science?“ In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Political Science, edited by H. Kincaid and J. Van Bouwel, 863–910. New York: Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. 1992. “Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (3): 281–304. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004.
   Google Scholar