How Realistic Is the Modeling of Epistemic Democracy?
Само за регистроване кориснике
2022
Чланак у часопису (Рецензирана верзија)
Метаподаци
Приказ свих података о документуАпстракт
The “diversity trumps ability” (DTA) model is often interpreted as a mechanism supporting epistemic democracy. However, as a variety of empirical and mathematical studies have shown, if we attempt to test the realism of the model, it turns out that it points as much toward epistocracy as democracy. This might appear to leave epistocracy with an advantage, since its rationale is not usually thought to rely on the DTA but on the obvious relevance of expertise to making complex decisions. Yet if we apply the same test to epistocracy that we should apply to epistemic democracy—the test of realism—we find that it, too, is unsustainable. This suggests that epistemic democracy and epistocracy alike are indefensible on the basis of the abstract assumptions about diversity and expertise on which the DTA is predicated.
Кључне речи:
divesity / ability / expertise / democracy / epistemic democracy / epistocracy / realism / Hong-Page theorem / Jason BrennanИзвор:
A Journal of Politics and Society, 2022, 34, 2, 279-298Издавач:
- Taylor & Francis Online
DOI: 10.1080/08913811.2022.2055899
WoS: 000793125700001
Scopus: 2-s2.0-85131708614
Институција/група
Filozofija / PhilosophyTY - JOUR AU - Vasić, Miljan PY - 2022 UR - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/5346 AB - The “diversity trumps ability” (DTA) model is often interpreted as a mechanism supporting epistemic democracy. However, as a variety of empirical and mathematical studies have shown, if we attempt to test the realism of the model, it turns out that it points as much toward epistocracy as democracy. This might appear to leave epistocracy with an advantage, since its rationale is not usually thought to rely on the DTA but on the obvious relevance of expertise to making complex decisions. Yet if we apply the same test to epistocracy that we should apply to epistemic democracy—the test of realism—we find that it, too, is unsustainable. This suggests that epistemic democracy and epistocracy alike are indefensible on the basis of the abstract assumptions about diversity and expertise on which the DTA is predicated. PB - Taylor & Francis Online T2 - A Journal of Politics and Society T1 - How Realistic Is the Modeling of Epistemic Democracy? EP - 298 IS - 2 SP - 279 VL - 34 DO - 10.1080/08913811.2022.2055899 ER -
@article{ author = "Vasić, Miljan", year = "2022", abstract = "The “diversity trumps ability” (DTA) model is often interpreted as a mechanism supporting epistemic democracy. However, as a variety of empirical and mathematical studies have shown, if we attempt to test the realism of the model, it turns out that it points as much toward epistocracy as democracy. This might appear to leave epistocracy with an advantage, since its rationale is not usually thought to rely on the DTA but on the obvious relevance of expertise to making complex decisions. Yet if we apply the same test to epistocracy that we should apply to epistemic democracy—the test of realism—we find that it, too, is unsustainable. This suggests that epistemic democracy and epistocracy alike are indefensible on the basis of the abstract assumptions about diversity and expertise on which the DTA is predicated.", publisher = "Taylor & Francis Online", journal = "A Journal of Politics and Society", title = "How Realistic Is the Modeling of Epistemic Democracy?", pages = "298-279", number = "2", volume = "34", doi = "10.1080/08913811.2022.2055899" }
Vasić, M.. (2022). How Realistic Is the Modeling of Epistemic Democracy?. in A Journal of Politics and Society Taylor & Francis Online., 34(2), 279-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2022.2055899
Vasić M. How Realistic Is the Modeling of Epistemic Democracy?. in A Journal of Politics and Society. 2022;34(2):279-298. doi:10.1080/08913811.2022.2055899 .
Vasić, Miljan, "How Realistic Is the Modeling of Epistemic Democracy?" in A Journal of Politics and Society, 34, no. 2 (2022):279-298, https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2022.2055899 . .