Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Rational Polarization.Kevin Dorst - manuscript
    Predictable polarization is everywhere: we can often predict how people’s opinions—including our own—will shift over time. Empirical studies suggest that this is so when evidence is ambiguous. That fact is often thought to demonstrate human irrationality. It doesn’t. Bayesians will predictably polarize iff their evidence is ambiguous. And ours often is: the process of cognitive search—searching a cognitively-accessible space for an item of a particular profile—yields ambiguous evidence that can predictably polarize beliefs, despite being expected to make them more accurate. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Motivated Reasoning in Political Information Processing: The Death Knell of Deliberative Democracy?Mason Richey - 2012 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 42 (4):511-542.
    In this article, I discuss what motivated reasoning research tells us about the prospects for deliberative democracy. In section I, I introduce the results of several political psychology studies examining the problematic affective and cognitive processing of political information by individuals in nondeliberative, experimental environments. This is useful because these studies are often neglected in political philosophy literature. Section II has three stages. First, I sketch how the study results from section I question the practical viability of deliberative democracy. Second, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • “Speaking on Behalf of…”: Leadership Ethics and the Collective Nature of Moral Reflection.Andreas Rasche - 2020 - Journal of Business Ethics 163 (1):13-22.
    In this essay I discuss two limitations that emerge when considering Tsoukas analysis of the Academy of Management’s initial response to the travel ban issued by President Trump in 2017. First, I suggest that any initial official response on the part of AOM would have required its leaders to “speak on behalf of” all AOM members and thus would have created a number of problems. We therefore need to take better account of others’ perspectives whenever speaking for others. For this (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Deliberation and Courts.Donald Bello Hutt - 2017 - Theoria 64 (152):77-103.
    We lack analyses of the judiciary from a systemic perspective. This article thus examines arguments offered by deliberativists who have reflected about this institution and argues that the current state of deliberative democracy requires us to rethink the ways they conceive of the judiciary within a deliberative framework. After an examination of these accounts, I define the deliberative system and describe the different phases deliberative democracy has gone through. I then single out elements common to all systemic approaches against which (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Need for Non-Ideal Theory: A Case Study in Deliberative Democracy.Danielle M. Wenner - 2017 - In M. Weber & Kevin Vallier (eds.), Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates. Oxford, UK: pp. 203-231.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Assessing the Epistemic Quality of Democratic Decision-Making in Terms of Adequate Support for Conclusions.Henrik Friberg-Fernros & Johan Karlsson Schaffer - 2017 - Social Epistemology 31 (3):251-265.
    How can we assess the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making? Sceptics doubt such assessments are possible, as they must rely on controversial substantive standards of truth and rightness. Challenging that scepticism, this paper suggests a procedure-independent standard for assessing the epistemic quality of democratic decision-making by evaluating whether it is adequately supported by reasons. Adequate support for conclusion is a necessary aspect of epistemic quality for any epistemic justification of democracy, though particularly relevant to theories that emphasize public deliberation. Finding (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations