3,078
edits
Changes
→On using Experts in Deliberation
* Epistemically, delegation of deliberation to expert can promote citizen ignorance.
* Expert themselves can be biased (as was suggested by Loerenz et al.<ref>[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/10/1008636108.full.pdf Lorenz et al., How social infulence can underminr the wisdom of the crowds effect, 2011, PNAS]</ref>)
* The world view of the experts can be very narrow, and may have low representation of variety of important SON to the decision making. The may have lack of emotional perspective of the shareholders population, or may ignore ethical or democratic principles. Expert can be influenced by some major school of thoughts that prevail in the academy.
* Expert may be part of well educated elite which are not good representative of the whole public, and may promote decision in the lite of their elite world-view.
* Experts may also lack the will or the understanding of reaching the ability of a group to act, or to reach high degree of consensus. Groups needs some inner adjustment to happen, so the can act. Some more able people need should be addressed, so they will want to move the group towards it's goals. Or a group should reach high degree of consensus to avoid grudge between groups. Experts decisions may not take these factors into account.