Science and Informed, Counterfactual, Democratic Consent

Philosophy of Science 82 (5):1284-1295 (2015)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
On many science-related policy questions, the public is unable to make informed decisions, because of its inability to make use of knowledge obtained by scientists. Philip Kitcher and James Fishkin have both suggested therefore that on certain science-related issues, public policy should not be decided on by actual democratic vote, but should instead conform to the public’s counterfactual informed democratic decision. Indeed, this suggestion underlies Kitcher’s specification of an ideal of a well-ordered science. This article argues that this suggestion misconstrues the normative significance of CIDDs. At most, CIDDs might have epistemic significance, but no authority or legitimizing force
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2014-09-07
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
234 ( #20,175 of 52,923 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
20 ( #30,108 of 52,923 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.