Disagreement, Epistemic Paralysis, and the Legitimacy of Technocracy
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 6251877 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Étienne Brown (0000-0003-1314-5068), Zoe Phillips Williams (0000-0001-9669-2731) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1-3 |
| Pages | 62-84 |
| Publication date | 2020-07-02 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Critical Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0891-3811 • E-ISSN: 1933-8007 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/08913811.2020.1838743 |
| OpenAlex | W3106839502 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 8 |
Jeffrey Friedman convincingly argues that technocrats may often lack the knowledge required to enact public policies that will effectively promote their consequentialist goals. Friedman’s argument is strong enough to produce technocratic paralysis, in many cases, but “epistemic gambles” may present a way out of this problem. His discussion of exitocracy also raises the question of how to square his internal form of technocratic critique with the question of democratic legitimacy
Argument (complex analysis · Democracy · Democratic legitimacy · Economics · Epistemology · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Sociology · Technocracy · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Law · Medicine · Philosophy · Political Philosophy and Ethics
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2024 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |