Content uploaded by Haris Shekeris
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Haris Shekeris on Aug 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Scientific Expert Committees, Wicked
Problems and Procedure
Haris Shekeris
Epistemological foundations and
principles for the democratisation of the
governance of science
PI: Prof. Stéphanie Ruphy
www.democrasci.com
Presentation Plan
I. Visual Presentation of the Argument
II. Introduction
III. Four guiding assumptions
IV. Changing the framework
- Arguments for changing the framework
- Benefits of changing the framework
I. Visual Presentation of the
Argument
Rationality–
Epistemic
Quality
Approach
To
Policy
Problems
Domain: Wicked
Problems
HOW
Methodological Tool:
Deliberative Democracy
Input Observations:
1) Plural Subjects
2) Responsibility
Output/ Gains:
1) Legitimacy
2) Efficiency – Implementation
3) Democratisation of expertise
≠
II. Introduction
II. Introduction
●Role of science in policy-making
●Need for scientific expert committees (complexity of
problems, plurality of sources of pertinent evidence,
need for multiple advisors)
II. Introduction
Rationality – epistemic quality considerations:
● Development of tools and algorithms
● Optimism about feasibility of evaluating epistemic
quality
● ‘No mistakes allowed’ - pressure for precision
Criticism of epistemic quality projects:
● Importance of values – defying numerisation
● Challenges and failures remain
● Not compelling for action by mass public –
challenges to scientific authority
III. Four guiding assumptions
Rationality–
Epistemic
Quality
Approach
To
Policy
Problems
Domain: Wicked
Problems
HOW
Methodological Tool:
Deliberative Democracy
Input Observations:
1) Plural Subjects
2) Responsibility
Output/ Gains:
1) Legitimacy
2) Efficiency – Implementation
3) Democratisation of expertise
≠
III. Four guiding Assumptions –
Wicked Problems (sketching the domain)
Rationality–
Epistemic
Quality
Approach
To
Policy
Problems
Domain: Wicked
Problems
HOW
Methodological Tool:
Deliberative Democracy
Input Observations:
1) Plural Subjects
2) Responsibility
Output/ Gains:
1) Legitimacy
2) Efficiency – Implementation
3) Democratisation of expertise
≠
III. Four guiding Assumptions – Deliberative
Democracy (how to approach the problem)
●Expert committee members ought to be viewed as (ideal)
deliberators in the sense of deliberative democracy
theorists
●Characteristics:
●Equal and free
●Epistemic peers
●Common conception of rationality
●Motivated ‘by the force of the better argument’
●Seek consensus
Rationality–
Epistemic
Quality
Approach
To
Policy
Problems
Domain: Wicked
Problems
HOW
Methodological Tool:
Deliberative Democracy
Input Observations:
1) Plural Subjects
2) Responsibility
Output/ Gains:
1) Legitimacy
2) Efficiency – Implementation
3) Democratisation of expertise
≠
III. Four guiding Assumptions – Plural Subjects
(observation)
●Groups as plural subjects of cognitive states
●Joint commitments and rights
●Local standards of justification and of knowledge
●Expert scientific committees as a plural subjects
Rationality–
Epistemic
Quality
Approach
To
Policy
Problems
Domain: Wicked
Problems
HOW
Methodological Tool:
Deliberative Democracy
Input Observations:
1) Plural Subjects
2) Responsibility
Output/ Gains:
1) Legitimacy
2) Efficiency – Implementation
3) Democratisation of expertise
≠
III. Four guiding Assumptions – Responsibility
(observation)
●Scientific Expert committees bear responsibility for the
result of their deliberation
●Issues of group vs individual responsibility not
particularly pertinent, collective responsibility assumed
Rationality–
Epistemic
Quality
Approach
To
Policy
Problems
Domain: Wicked
Problems
HOW
Methodological Tool:
Deliberative Democracy
Input Observations:
1) Plural Subjects
2) Responsibility
Output/ Gains:
1) Legitimacy
2) Efficiency – Implementation
3) Democratisation of expertise
≠
III. Four guiding assumptions – Coherence of
the assumptions
●Abstract theorising vs concrete problems
●Not so far after all (role of values)
●Problems addressed by groups vs problems subject to
deliberation by all
●Assumption that a diverse ‘parliament’ of
scientists and election by sortition aptly
represents the people
IV. Changing the framework
Rationality–
Epistemic
Quality
Approach
To
Policy
Problems
Domain: Wicked
Problems
HOW
Methodological Tool:
Deliberative Democracy
Input Observations:
1) Plural Subjects
2) Responsibility
Output/ Gains:
1) Legitimacy
2) Efficiency – Implementation
3) Democratisation of expertise
≠
IV. Changing the framework –
Arguments for
Rational deliberative proceduralism (Benhabib) vs
Epistemic proceduralism (Estlund)
1) Scientific committee rational by definition, truth-
tracking not applicable for wicked problems
2) ‘Every attempt counts’ favours conclusive
responsibility considerations (hence procedure)
3) Parsimony dictates rejection of additional criteria
IV. Changing the framework – Benefits
of changing the framework
Rationality–
Epistemic
Quality
Approach
To
Policy
Problems
Domain: Wicked
Problems
HOW
Methodological Tool:
Deliberative Democracy
Input Observations:
1) Plural Subjects
2) Responsibility
Output/ Gains:
1) Legitimacy
2) Efficiency – Implementation
3) Democratisation of expertise
≠
IV. Changing the framework – Benefits
of changing the framework
Normative conception of
legitimacy: justification
of a decision so as to
exert political authority
and command an
obligation to be acted
upon
Efficiency
-implementation
Democratisation of
expertise
Scientific expertise as
form of democracy rather
than democracy as form
of science