The epistemic attitudes of scientists, such as epistemic tolerance and authoritarianism, play important roles in the discourse about rivaling theories. Epistemic tolerance stands for the mental attitude of an epistemic agent, e.g., a scientist, who is open to opposing views, while epistemic authoritarianism represents the tendency to uncritically accept views of authorities. Another relevant epistemic factor when it comes to the epistemic decisions of scientists is the skepticism towards the scientific method. However, the question is whether these epistemic attitudes are (...) influenced by their sociopolitical counterparts, such as the researcher’s degree of conservatism. To empirically investigate the interplay between epistemic and sociopolitical attitudes of scientists, we conducted a survey with researchers (N = 655) across different disciplines. We propose scales for measuring epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism, as well as a scale for detecting the participants' readiness to question the scientific method. Furthermore, we investigate the relationship between epistemic tolerance and epistemic authoritarianism on the one hand, and career stage and sociopolitical views on the other hand. Interestingly, our study found only small correlations between the participants' degree of conservatism and their epistemic attitudes. This suggests that political views, against common argumentation, actually do not play an important role in one’s scientific decisions. Moreover, social scientists scored higher on the epistemic tolerance and lower on the epistemic authoritarianism scale than natural scientists. Finally, the results indicate that natural scientists question the scientific method less than social scientists. (shrink)

The longstanding tension between the procedural and instrumental justification of democracy has been challenged by the theories that try to combine both approaches. These theories portray epistemic features of democracy in an instrumental framework and then try to reconcile them with procedural values. In this paper, I argue that it is possible to incorporate an epistemic dimension into a justification of democracy, without resorting to instrumentalism. On the view that I advance, Peircean epistemology, when combined with intrinsically valued epistemic virtues, (...) constitutes a purely procedural argument for democracy. (shrink)

My aim in this paper is to explain what Condorcet’s jury theorem is, and to examine its central assumptions, its significance to the epistemic theory of democracy and its connection with Rousseau’s theory of general will. In the first part of the paper I will analyze an epistemic theory of democracy and explain how its connection with Condorcet’s jury theorem is twofold: the theorem is at the same time a contributing historical source, and the model used by the authors to (...) this day. In the second part I will specify the purposes of the theorem itself, and examine its underlying assumptions. Third part will be about an interpretation of Rousseau’s theory, which is given by Grofman and Feld relying on Condorcet’s jury theorem, and about criticisms of such interpretation. In the fourth, and last, part I will focus on one particular assumption of Condorcet’s theorem, which proves to be especially problematic if we would like to apply the theorem under real-life conditions; namely, the assumption that voters choose between two options only. (shrink)

Epistemic paternalism is the practice of interfering in the process of inquiry of another,without prior consultation and for the sake of her epistemic good. We will examine two main types of epistemic paternalism: eudaimonic and strict. In the case of eudaimonic epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is used only as a means to achieve non-epistemic benefits. In the case of strict epistemic paternalism, epistemic improvement is valued as a good in itself. The main objection against each type of epistemic paternalism is (...) that this practice leads to a violation of personal autonomy. We will defend a more moderate form of strict epistemic paternalism which is motivated by both epistemic and non-epistemic benefits. At the same time, this moderate form leads to the development of specific epistemic virtues, which results in an increase rather than a violation of personal autonomy. We will show that the question of the justification of epistemic paternalism is especially relevant in crises, such as the current pandemic caused by the covid-19 virus. (shrink)

Following the dissolution of the SFRY, and in the light of new social circumstances, the religious communities have new social status and new social role; they have come out from the private sphere and found its place in the public one. Religious tolerance is more significant in the context of desecularization of social life, both for the religious communities themselves, and for other social actors and the society as a whole. With this in mind, the goal of this paper is (...) to analyze theoretical views and definitions of the notion of religious tolerance in the papers of domestic authors- philosophers, representatives of social sciences as well as theologians. In addition to the analysis of the impact of social context, the relation between monotheism and in/tolerance is also analyzed, whereas a doctrinaire aspect, i.e. the content of the sacred texts, is contemplated as well. A consideration is given to the possible subjects of the religious tolerance, and a problem of paternalism is pointed out in the speeches on religion stressing the importance of the mutual appreciation and respect among the actors of the dialogue communication. In accordance with the current views on im/possibility of the tolerance among different denominations, that is, religions, due to their different standpoints on the man's path to salvation, emphasize is given to the difference between valuing cognition and valuing an actor - individuals, communities and social groups. (shrink)

The paper addresses the issue and theoretical articulations of religious tolerance, overviewing theoretical approaches of various authors - starting with the period of enlightenment. In that sense, we analyze the standpoints of John Locke, François Marie Arouet, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, Andrew Heywood, John Rawls, Žolt Lazar, Aleksandar Prnjat and Đuro Šušnjić. At the end of the paper we give a short summary of the 18th century Habsburg Monarchy relation towards freedom of religious beliefs, bearing in mind minority (...) status of the Serbian community of Orthodox religion. (shrink)

In the developed countries, the importance and development of sharing economy as a new economic model have been increasingly discussed in recent decades. In Serbia, sharing economy has not yet been sufficiently explored in official reports and academic literature. On the other hand, in practice, there are several collaborative platforms used by consumers. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to point out the specifics of the sharing economy in Serbia. At the outset, after a brief introduction, the concept of (...) a sharing economy is defined. Consumers’ attitudes about knowledge of the sharing economy, the expectations, and motives that drive them to market engagement are examined and presented. Examples of good practices in the field of sharing economy in Serbia are given. The factors that stimulate or restrict the development of the sharing economy are highlighted, and the legislative framework that directly and indirectly regulates this area is presented. The conclusion about the level of the development of sharing economy in Serbia is derived, and recommendation for future research is given. (shrink)