Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Epistemic democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet jury theorem.Christian List & Robert E. Goodin - 2001 - Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (3):277–306.
    This paper generalises the classical Condorcet jury theorem from majority voting over two options to plurality voting over multiple options. The paper further discusses the debate between epistemic and procedural democracy and situates its formal results in that debate. The paper finally compares a number of different social choice procedures for many-option choices in terms of their epistemic merits. An appendix explores the implications of some of the present mathematical results for the question of how probable majority cycles (as in (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   153 citations  
  • Defending the purely instrumental account of democratic legitimacy.Richard J. Arneson - 2003 - Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (1):122–132.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   46 citations  
  • Rhetoric and the Public Sphere.Simone Chambers - 2009 - Political Theory 37 (3):323-350.
    The pathologies of the democratic public sphere, first articulated by Plato in his attack on rhetoric, have pushed much of deliberative theory out of the mass public and into the study and design of small scale deliberative venues. The move away from the mass public can be seen in a growing split in deliberative theory between theories of democratic deliberation (on the ascendancy) which focus on discrete deliberative initiatives within democracies and theories of deliberative democracy (on the decline) that attempt (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   63 citations  
  • The Relation between Formal and Informal Logic.Ralph H. Johnson - 1999 - Argumentation 13 (3):265-274.
    The issue of the relationship between formal and informal logic depends strongly on how one understands these two designations. While there is very little disagreement about the nature of formal logic, the same is not true regarding informal logic, which is understood in various (often incompatible) ways by various thinkers. After reviewing some of the more prominent conceptions of informal logic, I will present my own, defend it and then show how informal logic, so understood, is complementary to formal logic.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • (1 other version)The epistemology of democracy.Elizabeth Anderson - 2006 - Episteme 3 (1-2):8-22.
    Th is paper investigates the epistemic powers of democratic institutions through an assessment of three epistemic models of democracy : the Condorcet Jury Th eorem, the Diversity Trumps Ability Th eorem, and Dewey's experimentalist model. Dewey's model is superior to the others in its ability to model the epistemic functions of three constitutive features of democracy : the epistemic diversity of participants, the interaction of voting with discussion, and feedback mechanisms such as periodic elections and protests. It views democracy as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   179 citations  
  • Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.Hélène Landemore - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (3):277-295.
    This paper takes stock of a recent but growing movement within the field of deliberative democracy, which normatively argues for the epistemic dimension of democratic authority and positively defends the truth-tracking properties of democratic procedures. Authors within that movement call themselves epistemic democrats, hence the recognition by many of an ‘epistemic turn’ in democratic theory. The paper argues that this turn is a desirable direction in which the field ought to evolve, taking it beyond the ‘fact of disagreement’ that had (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   46 citations  
  • Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty.Nadia Urbinati & Maria Paula Saffon - 2013 - Political Theory 41 (3):0090591713476872.
    This essay reclaims a political proceduralist vision of democracy as the best normative defense of democracy in contemporary politics. We distinguish this vision from three main approaches that are representative in the current academic debate: the epistemic conception of democracy as a process of truth seeking; the populist defense of democracy as a mobilizing politics that defies procedures; and the classical minimalist or Schumpeterian definition of democracy as a competitive method for selecting leaders.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   39 citations  
  • Argumentation mining.Raquel Mochales & Marie-Francine Moens - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (1):1-22.
    Argumentation mining aims to automatically detect, classify and structure argumentation in text. Therefore, argumentation mining is an important part of a complete argumentation analyisis, i.e. understanding the content of serial arguments, their linguistic structure, the relationship between the preceding and following arguments, recognizing the underlying conceptual beliefs, and understanding within the comprehensive coherence of the specific topic. We present different methods to aid argumentation mining, starting with plain argumentation detection and moving forward to a more structural analysis of the detected (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument from Waste.Douglas Walton - 2002 - Argumentation 16 (4):473-503.
    This project tackles the problem of analyzing a specific form of reasoning called ‘sunk costs’ in economics and ‘argument from waste’ in argumentation theory. The project is to build a normative structure representing the form of the argument, and then to apply this normative structure to actual cases in which the sunk costs argument has been used. The method is partly structural and partly empirical. The empirical part is carried out through the analysis of case studies of the sunk costs (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Reductionism in Fallacy Theory.Christoph Lumer - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (4):405-423.
    (1) The aim of the paper is to develop a reduction of fallacy theory, i.e. to 'deduce' fallacy theory from a positive theory of argumentation which provides exact criteria for valid and adequate argumentation. Such reductionism has several advantages compared to an unsystematic action, which is quite usual in current fallacy but which at least in part is due to the poor state of positive argumentation theory itself. (2) After defining 'fallacy' (3) some principle ideas and (4) the exact criteria (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Three objections to the epistemic theory of argument rebutted.Scott F. Aikin - 2008 - Argumentation and Advocacy 44:130-142.
    Three objections to the epistemic theory of argument are presented and briefly rebutted. In light of this reply, a case for argumentative eclecticism is made.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Judgment aggregation and the problem of tracking the truth.Stephan Hartmann & Jan Sprenger - 2012 - Synthese 187 (1):209-221.
    The aggregation of consistent individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective judgment on those propositions has recently drawn much attention. Seemingly reasonable aggregation procedures, such as propositionwise majority voting, cannot ensure an equally consistent collective conclusion. The literature on judgment aggregation refers to that problem as the discursive dilemma. In this paper, we motivate that many groups do not only want to reach a factually right conclusion, but also want to correctly evaluate the reasons for that conclusion. In (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  • The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics.Simon Niemeyer - 2011 - Politics and Society 39 (1):103-140.
    This article investigates the prospects of deliberative democracy through the analysis of small-scale deliberative events, or mini-publics, using empirical methods to understand the process of preference transformation. Evidence from two case studies suggests that deliberation corrects preexisting distortions of public will caused by either active manipulation or passive overemphasis on symbolically potent issues. Deliberation corrected these distortions by reconnecting participants’ expressed preferences to their underlying “will” as well as shaping a shared understanding of the issue.The article concludes by using these (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework.David Estlund - 2008 - Critica 42 (124):118-125.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   445 citations  
  • Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes.D. Walton & C. A. Reed - 2005 - Synthese 145 (3):339-370.
    The aim of this investigation is to explore the role of argumentation schemes in enthymeme reconstruction. This aim is pursued by studying selected cases of incomplete arguments in natural language discourse to see what the requirements are for filling in the unstated premises and conclusions in some systematic and useful way. Some of these cases are best handled using deductive tools, while others respond best to an analysis based on defeasible argumentations schemes. The approach is also shown to work reasonably (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • When deliberation produces extremism.David Schkade, Cass R. Sunstein & Reid Hastie - 2010 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 22 (2):227-252.
    What are the effects of deliberation about political issues by likeminded people? An experimental investigation involving two deliberative exercises, one among self-identified liberals and another among self-identified conservatives, showed that participants' views became more extreme after deliberation. Deliberation also increased consensus and significantly reduced diversity of opinion within the two groups. Even anonymous statements of personal opinion became more extreme and homogeneous after deliberation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • Identifying implicit assumptions.Robert H. Ennis - 1982 - Synthese 51 (1):61 - 86.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   59 citations  
  • On Seeking the Truth through Democracy: Estlund’s Case for the Qualified Epistemic Claim.Gerald Gaus - 2011 - Ethics 121 (2):270-300.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • On the significance of the absolute Margin.Christian List - 2004 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (3):521-544.
    Consider the hypothesis H that a defendant is guilty, and the evidence E that a majority of h out of n independent jurors have voted for H and a minority of k:=n-h against H. How likely is the majority verdict to be correct? By a formula of Condorcet, the probability that H is true given E depends only on each juror's competence and on the absolute margin between the majority and the minority h-k, but neither on the number n, nor (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation–A Map.Christoph Lumer - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):189-212.
    The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument: a theory that regards providingjustified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. After introducing some central terms of such a theory, answers to its central questions are proposed: the primary object and structure of the theory, the function of arguments, which is to lead to justified belief, the way such arguments function, which is to guide the addressee's cognizing, objective versus subjective aspects of argumentation, designing different types (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   28 citations  
  • Balancing epistemic quality and equal participation in a system approach to deliberative democracy.Simone Chambers - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (3):266-276.
    In this paper, I argue that the asymmetrical mediated communication of the broad democratic public sphere can profitably be understood through the lens of deliberative democracy only if we adopt a system approach to deliberation. A system approach, however, often introduces a division of labor between ordinary citizens and experts. Although this division of labor is unavoidable and I believe compatible with a deliberative principle of legitimacy, it flirts with elitist theories of democracy: epistemic elites come up with the agendas, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   20 citations  
  • Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: An approach to legal logic. [REVIEW]Bart Verheij - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 11 (2-3):167-195.
    This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes a notion borrowed from the .eld of argumentation theory - are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   67 citations  
  • A CULTURE OF JUSTIFICATION: THE PRAGMATIST'S EPISTEMIC ARGUMENT FOR DEMOCRACY11.This paper has been improved by the comments of David Dyzenhaus and David Estlund. Some of the material is drawn from Misak (2000) and (in press). [REVIEW]Cheryl Misak - 2008 - Episteme 5 (1):94-105.
    The pragmatist view of politics is at its very heart epistemic, for it treats morals and politics as a kind of deliberation or inquiry, not terribly unlike other kinds of inquiry. With the exception of Richard Rorty, the pragmatists argue that morals and politics, like science, aim at the truth or at getting things right and that the best method for achieving this aim is a method they sometimes call the scientific method or the method of intelligence – what would (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Disagreement and epistemic arguments for democracy.Sean Ingham - 2013 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 12 (2):136-155.
    Recent accounts of epistemic democracy aim to show that in some qualified sense, democratic institutions have a tendency to produce reasonable outcomes. Epistemic democrats aim to offer such accounts without presupposing any narrow, controversial view of what the outcomes of democratic procedures should be, much as a good justification of a particular scientific research design does not presuppose the hypothesis that the research aims to test. The article considers whether this aim is achievable. It asks, in particular, whether accounts of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • The Epistemological Theory of Argument--How and Why?Christoph Lumer - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):213-243.
    The article outlines a general epistemological theory of argument: a theory that regards providingjustified belief as the principal aim of argumentation, and defends it instrumentalistically. After introducing some central terms of such a theory (2), answers to its central questions are proposed: the primary object and structure of the theory (3), the function of arguments, which is to lead to justified belief (4), the way such arguments function, which is to guide the addressee's cognizing (5), objective versus subjective aspects of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   42 citations  
  • The Interpretive Turn. [REVIEW]Ken Kress - 1987 - Ethics 97 (4):834-860.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   255 citations  
  • (1 other version)Introduction: The Epistemological Approach to Argumentation--A Map.Christoph Lumer - 2005 - Informal Logic 25 (3):189-212.
    An overview of the epistemological approach to argumentation, explaining what it is, justifying it as better than a rhetorical or a consensual ist approach.systematizing the main directions and theories according to their criteria for good argumentation and presenting their contributions to major topics of argumentation theory. Also. an introduction to the articles of the two special issues of Informal Logic about the epistemological approach to argumentation.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • Validity and scope as criteria for deliberative epistemic quality across pluralism.Andrew Knops - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (3):340-350.
    This paper examines the properties of the validity and scope of arguments as standards for evaluating the epistemic qualities of particular deliberative exchanges within a context of value pluralism where parties can hold differing views of the common good based on incommensurable basic values. In this context, the task of political decisions is to maximise the interests of all, only judging between internally coherent versions of the common good on the basis of their mutual impact. The paper argues open, democratic, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Delivering Deliberation’s Emancipatory Potential.Andrew Knops - 2006 - Political Theory 34 (5):594-623.
    Much of the appeal of deliberative democracy lies in its emancipatory promise to give otherwise disadvantaged groups a voice, and to grant them influence through reasoned argument. However, the precise mechanisms for delivery of this promise remain obscure. After reviewing Habermas's formulation of deliberation, the article draws on recent theories of argumentation to provide a more detailed account of such mechanisms. The article identifies the key emancipatory mechanism as explicitness in language. It outlines the primary modalities of this mechanism: expressing (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • A Note from the Editor.[author unknown] - 2000 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 29 (1):3-4.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations