The ideal and reality of epistemic proceduralism

References

• Bevir, Mark and Nabil Ansari, 2012. Should deliberative democrats eschew modernist social science? Western Political Science Association meeting. Available from: http://wpsa.research.pdx.edu/meet/2012/ansari.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, James, 1998. Survey article: the coming of age of deliberative democracy. Journal of political philosophy, 6, 400–425.10.1111/1467-9760.00061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chambers, Simone, 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual review of political science, 6, 307–326.10.1146/annurev.polisci.6.121901.085538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua, 1999. Reflections on Habermas on democracy. Ratio Juris, 12, 385–416.10.1111/raju.1999.12.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua, 2009 [1989]. Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In: Philosophy, politics, democracy: selected essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 16–37.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua, 2009 [1996]. Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. In: Politics philosophy, democracy: selected essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 154–180.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua, 2010. Rousseau: a free community of equals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199581498.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Joshua and Sabel, Charles, 2009 [1997]. Directly deliberative polyarchy. In: Joshua Cohen, Philosophy, politics, democracy: selected essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 181–222.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, Robert, 1989. Democracy and its critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dewey, John, 1927. The public and its problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dryzek, John S., 2010. Foundations and frontiers of deliberative governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562947.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Elstub, Stephen, 2010. The third generation of deliberative democracy. Political studies review, 8, 291–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ely, John Hart, 1980. Democracy and distrust: a theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David, 1989. Democratic theory and the public interest: Condorcet and Rousseau revisited. The American political science review, 83, 1317–1322.10.2307/1961672
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, David, 1993a. Making truth safe for democracy. In: David Copp, Jean Hampton, and John E. Roemer, eds. The idea of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 71–100.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David, 1993b. Who’s afraid of deliberative democracy? The strategic/deliberative dichotomy in recent constitutional jurisprudence. Texas law review, 71, 1437–1477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, David, 2008. Democratic authority: a philosophical framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David, 2011. Reply to Copp, Gaus, Richardson, and Edmundson. Ethics, 121, 354–389.10.1086/658138
   Google Scholar
• Farrelly, Colin, 2005. Making deliberative democracy a more practical political ideal. European journal of political theory, 4, 200–208.
   Google Scholar
• Friberg-Fernros, Henrik, and Schaffer Johan Karlsson, 2014. The consensus paradox: does deliberative agreement impede rational discourse? Political studies, 62 (supplement S1), 99–116.10.1111/post.2014.62.issue-s1
   Google Scholar
• Gaus, Daniel, 2013. Rational reconstruction as a method of political theory between social critique and empirical political science. Constellations, 20, 553–570.10.1111/1467-8675.12064
   Google Scholar
• Gledhill, James, 2011. Procedure in substance and substance in procedure: reframing the Rawls–Habermas debate. In: James Gordon Finlayson and Fabian Freyenhagen, eds. Habermas and Rawls: disputing the political. New York: Routledge, 181–199.
   Google Scholar
• Gledhill, James, 2012. Rawls and realism. Social theory and practice, 38 (1), 55–82.10.5840/soctheorpract20123813
   Google Scholar
• Gutmann, Amy and Thompson, Dennis, 2002. Deliberative democracy beyond process. Journal of political philosophy, 10, 153–174.10.1111/1467-9760.00147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1982. Reply to my critics. In: John B. Thompson and David Held, eds. Habermas: critical debates. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 219–283.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1986. Law and morality. The Tanner lectures on human value. Available from: http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/documents/habermas88.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1991. Legitimation problems in the modern state. In: Thomas McCarthy, trans. Communication and the evolution of society. Cambridge: Polity, 178–205.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1996. Between facts and norms: contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy, trans. William Rehg. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1998. Reply to symposium participants. In: Michel Rosenfeld and Andrew Arato, eds. Habermas on law and democracy: critical exchanges. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 381–452.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 1999. ‘Reasonable’ versus ‘true’, or the morality of worldviews. In: Ciaran Cronin and Pablo De Greiff, eds. The inclusion of the other. Cambridge: Polity, 75–101.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 2000. On the pragmatics of communication, ed. Maeve Cooke. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen. 2003. Truth and justification, trans. Barbara Fultner. Cambridge: Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 2005. Concluding comments on empirical approaches to deliberative politics. Acta politica, 40, 384–392.10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500119
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 2009. Political communication in media society: does democracy still have an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. In: Ciaran Cronin, trans. Europe: the faltering project. Cambridge: Polity, 138–183.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, Jürgen, 2011. Reply to my critics. In: James Gordon Finlayson and Fabian Freyenhagen, eds. Habermas and Rawls: disputing the political. New York: Routledge, 283–304.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, Carolyn M., Ercan, Selen Ayirtman, and Boswell John, 2013. Understanding deliberative systems in practice: the crucial role for interpretive research. American Political Science Association annual meeting. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2303027.
   Google Scholar
• Korsgaard, Christine M., 1996. Two distinctions in goodness. In: Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174503
   Google Scholar
• Korsgaard, Christine M., 2009. Self-constitution: agency, identity, and integrity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199552795.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Lafont, Christina, 2003. Procedural justice? Implications of the Rawls–Habermas debate for discourse ethics. Philosophy and social criticism, 29, 167–185.
   Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, Jane, et al., 2010. The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of political philosophy, 18, 64–100.10.1111/jopp.2010.18.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansbridge, Jane, et al., 2012. A systemic approach to deliberative democracy. In: John Parkinson and Jane Mansbridge, eds. Deliberative systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, David, 2013. A tale of two cities; or, political philosophy as lamentation. In: Justice for earthlings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 228–249.10.1017/CBO9781139236898
   Google Scholar
• Munro, Daniel, 2007. Norms, motives and radical democracy: Habermas and the problem of motivation. Journal of political philosophy, 15, 447–472.10.1111/jopp.2007.15.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neblo, Michael, 2005. Thinking through democracy: between the theory and practice of deliberative politics. Acta politica, 40, 169–181.10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neblo, Michael, 2007. Family disputes: diversity in defining and measuring deliberation. Swiss political science review, 13, 527–557.10.1002/spsr.2007.13.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parkinson, John and Mansbridge, Jane, eds., 2012. Deliberative systems: deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, Jørgen, 2009. Habermas and the political sciences: the relationship between theory and practice. Philosophy of the social sciences, 39, 381–407.10.1177/0048393108329796
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peter, Fabienne, 2007. Democratic legitimacy and proceduralist social epistemology. Politics, philosophy & economics, 6, 329–353.10.1177/1470594X07081303
   Google Scholar
• Peter, Fabienne, 2008. Pure epistemic proceduralism. Episteme, 5, 33–55.10.3366/E1742360008000221
   Google Scholar
• Peter, Fabienne, 2013. The procedural epistemic value of deliberation. Synthese, 190, 1253–1266.10.1007/s11229-012-0119-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettit, Philip, 1982. Habermas on truth and justice. In: G.H.R. Parkinson, ed. Marx and Marxisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 207–228.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, John, 1999. A theory of justice. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartzberg, Melissa, 2008. Voting the general will: Rousseau on decision rules. Political theory, 36, 403–423.10.1177/0090591708315145
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swift, Adam and White Stuart, 2008. Political theory, social science, and real politics. In: David Leopold and Marc Stears, eds. Political theory: methods and approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49–69.
   Google Scholar
• Tribe, Laurence H., 1985. Constitutional choices. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar