Difference between revisions of "Deliberation"

Revision as of 17:45, 4 November 2012

aspects of deliberation

Systematic Approach To Deliberation

Justification of Deliberation

Deliberation systems have three main functions, according to the the writers of Deliberative systems^[1]. The three are Epistemic, Ethic and Democratic. On the epistemic consideration, It should produce well informed decisions. In the ethic side, deliberation creates more bonding between citizens. In the democratic perspective deliberation should take into account inputs from wider prompt opinions of the population, when making decisions.

On using Experts in Deliberation

Although experts are sometimes crucial for deliberation, because they hold more corroborated SON, there are some concern that should be addresses when expert are taking part in a deliberation. Expert may harm deliberation in those aspects:

Epistemically, delegation of deliberation to expert can promote citizen ignorance.
Expert themselves can be biased (as was suggested by Loerenz et al.^[2])

Epistemic Considerations

Epistemology of Deliberation

the problem of coordination

Settings of Deliberation

Limitations on group size

large groups on-line deliberation

Distortions in Reason

For unloigical and intutive reasoning, see Intuitive Decision Making in "Decision Making"

Psychological considerations

FFFF and deliberation

Settings that promote system 2 discussion

methods of deliberation

deliberative polls

Criticism on deliberation

criticism on deliberation

References

↑ Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (p. 204). Cambridge University Press. p.10-12
↑ Lorenz et al., How social infulence can underminr the wisdom of the crowds effect, 2011, PNAS

[1] Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (p. 204). Cambridge University Press. p.10-12

[2] Lorenz et al., How social infulence can underminr the wisdom of the crowds effect, 2011, PNAS

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 ==Systematic Approach To Deliberation==
-Deliberation systems have three main functions, according to the the writers of Deliberative systems. The three are Epistemic, Ethic and Democratic. It should produce well informed decisions. In the ethic side, deliberation creates more bonding between citizens. In the democratic perspective deliberation should take into account inputs from wider prompt ions of the population, when making decisions<ref>Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (p. 204). Cambridge University Press. p.10-12</ref>.
+===Justification of Deliberation===
+Deliberation systems have three main functions, according to the the writers of Deliberative systems<ref>Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale (p. 204). Cambridge University Press. p.10-12</ref>. The three are ''Epistemic'', ''Ethic'' and ''Democratic''. On the epistemic consideration, It should produce well informed decisions. In the ethic side, deliberation creates more bonding between citizens. In the democratic perspective deliberation should take into account inputs from wider prompt opinions of the population, when making decisions.
+===On using Experts in Deliberation===
+Although experts are sometimes crucial for deliberation, because they hold more corroborated [[SON]], there are some concern that should be addresses when expert are taking part in a deliberation. Expert may harm deliberation in those aspects:
+* 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>)
 ==Epistemic Considerations==