Truth-tracing versus truth-tracking
Lafont, Landemore and epistemic democracy
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11340641 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter Niesen (0000-0003-4050-4265, Universität Hamburg, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 31-34 |
| Publication date | 2021-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Philosophy & Social Criticism (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0191-4537 • E-ISSN: 1461-734X |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0191453720974714 |
| OpenAlex | W3107912048 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 5 |
Cognitivist theories of democratic decision-making come in two flavours, which I label transparently and intransparently epistemic. Lafont’s deliberative theory of democracy has strengths in accounting for the transparently truth-tracing power of justification but lacks a plausible account of the intransparently truth-tracking power of aggregative approaches highlighted by, among others, Hélène Landemore, such as the Condorcet Jury Theorem or the Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem. I suggest opting for an approach that includes semi-transparently epistemic mechanisms, that is, truth-tracking mechanisms, the workings of which can be explained, passing the public reason test, to all citizens
Condorcet method · Deliberative democracy · Democracy · Epistemology · Jury · Political science · Politics · Power (physics · Sociology · Tracking (education · Voting · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Law · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |