Democratic answers to complex questions - an epistemic perspective

Bovens, LLondon School of Economics, Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method (författare)

This paper addresses a problem for theories of epistemic democracy. In a decision on a complex issue which can be decomposed into several parts, a collective can use different voting procedures: Either its members vote on each sub-question and the answers that gain majority support are used as premises for the conclusion on the main issue (premise based-procedure, pbp), or the vote is conducted on the main issue itself (conclusion-based procedure, cbp). The two procedures can lead to different results. We investigate which of these procedures is better as a truth-tracker, assuming that there exists a true answer to be reached. On the basis of the Condorcet jury theorem, we show that the pbp is universally superior if the objective is to reach truth for the right reasons. If one instead is after truth for whatever reasons, right or wrong, there will be cases in which the cbp is more reliable, even though, for the most part, the pbp still is to be preferred.

Rabinowicz, WlodekUppsala universitet,Lund University,Lunds universitet,Praktisk filosofi,Filosofiska institutionen,Institutioner,Humanistiska och teologiska fakulteterna,Practical Philosophy,Department of Philosophy,Departments,Joint Faculties of Humanities and Theology,Kollegiet för avancerade studier (SCAS)(Swepub:lu)fil-wra (författare)
London School of Economics, Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific MethodPraktisk filosofi (creator_code:org_t)

Ingår i:Synthese: Springer Science and Business Media LLC150:1, s. 131-1530039-78571573-0964

Om ämnet

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.