‘CAN IT BE THE CASE THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE WRONG?’- A DISCCUSSION CONCERNING THE EPISTEMIC VALUE OF DEMOCRACY

Abstract

This paper will analyze the arguments in favor of the epistemic value of democracy, which holds that apart from being a fair from of government, democratic decision making procedure tends to produce correct decisions. The paper will focus especially on the views of Helene Landemore, who is one of the most prominent representatives of this approach. After examining the views of Landemore that are centered on the concept of ‘democratic reason’, this approach will be placed in a context by comparing it with different approaches within the democratic theory concerning the relationship between democracy and truth. Lastly, it will be concluded that although it faces some difficulties or deficiencies concerning how to treat the concept of truth, epistemic democracy provides an especially powerful argument in favor of showing why democracy should embrace pluralism and hence of strengthening the tie between democracy and liberalism.

Keywords

• Epistemic Democracy,Democratic Reason,Deliberation,Majority Rule,Helene Landemore

‘BU KADAR KİŞİ YANILIYOR OLABİLİR Mİ’? - DEMOKRASİNİN EPİSTEMİK DEĞERİ ÜZERİNE BİR TARTIŞMA

Abstract

Bu yazıda demokrasinin epistemik değerine, yani demokratik karar alma usulünün adil bir yönetim biçimi olmanın yanı sıra, doğru kararlar üretmeye de meyilli olduğuna dair iddialar incelenmektedir. Yazıda özellikle epistemik demokrasi yaklaşımının önemli bir temsilcisi olan Helene Landemore’un görüşleri ele alınmaktadır. Landemore’un ‘demokratik akıl’ kavramı çerçevesinde şekillenen fikirleri ele alındıktan sonra bu yaklaşım, demokrasi ve doğruluk ilişkisine dair farklı pozisyonlarla karşılaştırılarak demokrasi teorileri içerisinde bir bağlama oturtulmaya çalışılmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, epistemik demokrasi yaklaşımının doğruluk kavramıyla kurduğu ilişkide bazı sorunlar ya da eksiklikler olduğu tespit edilmekle birlikte, bu yaklaşımın özellikle demokrasinin neden çoğulculuğu benimsemesi gerektiğine dair önemli bir argüman sunduğu ve böylece demokrasi ile liberalizm arasındaki bağı sağlamlaştırdığı savunulmaktadır.

Keywords

• Epistemik Demokrasi,Demokratik Akıl,Müzakere,Çoğunluk Kararı,Helene Landemore

References

1. Anderson, E. (2006). The epistemology of democracy. Episteme, 3 (1-2), 8-22.
2. Arendt, H. (1996). Geçmişle gelecek arasında. (B. S. Şener & O. E. Kara, Çev.). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.
3. Bohman, J. & Rehg, W. (1997). Introduction. J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Der.). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics içinde (ss. ix-xxx). Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.
4. Caplan, B. (2006). The myth of the rational voter. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
5. Christiano, T. (1997). The significance of public deliberation. J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Der), Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics içinde (ss. 243-278). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
6. Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97 (1), 26-38.
7. Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Der.). The good polity içinde (ss. 17-34). Oxford: Blackwell.
8. Cohen, J. (1996). Procedure and substance in deliberative democracy. S. Benhabib (Der.). Democracy and difference içinde (ss. 95-119). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

9. Converse, P. (1990). Popular representation and the distribution of ınformation. J. A. Freejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Der.). Information and democratic processes içinde (ss. 369-389). Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
10. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Lee Publishers.
11. Dryzek, J. S. (2004). Democratic political theory. G. F. Gauss & C. Kukathas (Der.). Handbook of political theory içinde (ss.143-154). London: Sage Publications.
12. Dworkin, R. (2011). Justice for hedgehogs. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press.
13. Estlund, D. (1997). Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democracy. J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Der.). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics içinde (ss. 173-204). Cambridge: The MIT Press.
14. Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press.
15. Estlund, D. (2012). Democracy counts: Should rulers be numerous?. H. Landemore & J. Elster (Der.). Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms içinde (ss. 230-250). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16. Estlund, D. & Landemore, H. (2018). The epistemic value of democratic deliberation. A. Bachtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge & M. E. Warren (Der.). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy içinde (ss. 113-131). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
17. Gauss, G. F. (1997). Reason justification and consensus: Why democracy can’t have it all. J. Bohman, J. & W. Rehg (Der.). Deliberative democracy: Essays on reason and politics içinde (ss. 173-204). Cambridge & London: The MIT Press.
18. Goodin, R. E. & Spiekermann, K. (2018). An epistemic theory of democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
19. Goodin, R. E., & Niemeyer, S. J. (2003). When does deliberation begin? Internal reflection versus public discussion in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51(4), 627–649.
20. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge & Waldon: Polity Press.
21. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46): 16385-89.
22. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2001). Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. Journal of economic theory, 97(1), 123-163.
23. Landemore, H. (2008). Democratic reason: The mechanisms of collective ıntelligence in politics. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the Conference ‘Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms”, College de France, Paris, 2008.
24. Landemore, H. (2012a). Why the many are smarter than the few and why it matters. Journal of public deliberation, 8(1), 7.
25. Landemore, H. (2012b). Democratic reason: The mechanisms of collective ıntelligence in politics. H. Landemore & J. Elster (Der.). Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms içinde (ss. 251-289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
27. Landemore, H. (2017). Beyond the fact of disagreement? The epistemic turn in deliberative democracy. Social Epistemology, 31(3), 277-295.
28. Mackie, G. (2006). Does democratic deliberation change minds?. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 5(3), 279-303.
29. Page, S. (2007). The Ddifference: How the power of diversity vreates better groups, firms, schools and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30. Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 223-252.
31. Rawls, J. (2007). Siyasal liberalizm. (M. F. Bilgin, Çev.). İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
32. Raz, J. (1990). Facing diversity: The case of epistemic abstinence. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 19 (1), 3-46.
33. Rousseau, J. J. (2006). Toplum sözleşmesi. (V. Günyol, Çev.). İstanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.
34. Searle, J. (2005). Toplumsal gerçekliğin inşası. (M. Macit & F. Özpilavcı, Çev.). İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık.
35. Schumpeter, J. (2003). Capitalism, socialism and demoracy. London & New York: Routledge.
36. Sunstein, C. (2006). Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Tepe, H. (2016). Platon’dan Habermas’a felsefede doğruluk ya da hakikat. Ankara: BilgeSu Yayıncılık.
38. Waldron, J. (1999). Law and disagreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.