Evolving Democracy towards Epistemic Responsibility

Christoffer

Society has become so used to representative democracy as the status quo form of government that no one is really tackling the discussion about its problems. The discussion often goes into "it's the most perfect system of government... so far". The so far often implies that someone else could improve past the problems someday, some time, somewhere, but no one seems to actually make an effort. The status quo remains as is.

So I would like to argue for a new type of democracy, "Epistemic Representative Democracy" or whatever term that would fit the form best.

I've always been a fan of Plato's idea about philosopher-kings, however, not a fan of its removal of people's democratic choice. So my proposal would be to combine the current form of representative democracy with Plato's philosophy kings.

Current problems
At the moment, we have educational requirements for most jobs, especially high-risk jobs, i.e jobs that could lead to harm and death. It wouldn't take much effort to argue that a politician is a high-risk job. Political decisions shape lives all the time and the causality of a political decision could very well kill thousands of citizens without there ever being any direct argued link to those decisions. Say, for example, reducing health care for poor people will definitely kill those who need it the most.

So why isn't there any educational demand on the politicians conducting this high-risk job? Why is it that anyone can become a politician and end up at the top of a nation's power hierarchy?

We live in a time when demagogues rule far more than actual leaders. And they have been placed there because of a representative democracy using psychological warfare, propaganda and advertising. In some cases even manipulating people through targeted advertising. The corruption of democracy we've seen in the last couple of decades has become a big problem for the type of system it's supposed to be. With enough resources, you could actually rule a nation as a dictator by manipulating the democratic system behind the curtain, like a wizard of Oz.

Most of this has to do with the politicians being interested in power, rather than knowledge and leadership. The motivations for becoming a politician often starts out with a will to change something and quickly descends into becoming a struggle for power instead. Like a video game where the goal of the game is drowned in meaningless tasks to the point where the game's initial goal becomes meaningless.

Other solutions
What can we do to change this? There have been tries of implementing this into some governments, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
But it doesn't erase the fact of incompetence within the leadership and it could even enforce it more by mob mentality. We could also decrease the time between elections in order to not have any politician enforcing laws that could fundamentally change a country against a large portion of its population. Still, it won't fix the problem of incompetence.

Epistemic Representative Democracy
My suggestion is to educate politicians. To become a politician able to vote in parliament or being in charge of a sector within the government in power, you need to go through education in order to act within those halls. You could still be a politician outside of it, say, you have a strong opinion that a change is needed, you could join a certain party and try to influence politicians, but you are not allowed to enter parliament or become someone with power unless you educate yourself to this position.

Just like any other high-risk job in society, the ability to shape people's life so drastically that it could kill them demands a level of competence. Just like anyone would be able to educate themself to become a doctor, we would never give that job to someone without any education. A medical license is required in order to be a doctor. Having a political license would mean you at least draw a baseline of knowledge a politician has to have in order to rule a country.

Requirements
Now, what would that education be about? At least 3-4 years minimum of university degree education that focuses on Philosophy (primarily Ethics, Epistemology, Political Philosophy), Psychology, Leadership psychology, dialectic debate, History and Economy.

You can enter this education at any time and in those countries where education needs to be funded by yourself (which should be abolished), the political party can fund that education if you have proven yourself being an asset they want in parliament.

After this education, you will be given a political license. This license can, just like a medical license, be suspended if you conducted malpractice as a politician, like bribes and such.

Parliament praxis
In parliament, interpellation debates often take place to discuss different decisions about to be made. If these debates were conducted in a more philosophical manner where biases and fallacies aren't allowed, it would lead to better and faster decisions since irrelevant things to the decision are canceled out by the praxis of having the debate free from bias and fallacies.

Usually, there's a "speaker of the house" present to keep order during debates and handle the schedule of the day. However, an additional role is added, the "fact-checker", to tackle fact-checking, biases and fallacies during debates. While this could make things go slower, it would definitely clean up debates and settle facts directly instead of in hindsight.

With the Fact-Checker present and the politician's educated knowledge in philosophy and dialectic debate, the discussions and practices in parliament would be both cleaner and more rational in method than what we see today.

People's democratic choice
When people vote, they cannot vote for people without a political license. All names available need to have a license in order to be elected. However, there will be optional questions about what areas in politics you as a voter want politicians to focus on.

If you, for example, vote primarily because you want the healthcare system to be better, you can tickbox your vote on a representative person together with a vote on healthcare as a primary thing you want to be improved. While none of this would affect the election of the representatives, it would inform any elected government about what the entire people are interested in improving in society. Meaning, even if you vote for representatives that will not be part of the ruling government, the entire parliament will know what all voters want to focus on. This would help any government to prioritize their politics during their first year in power.

Not direct-democracy, but direct-influence
Online, on the homepage for the parliament, there will be a forum for the people, where everyone has the ability to propose, and others to vote on, ideas and subjects of interest from the people. If these ideas gets traction on the forum, they will become subjects to address in parliament.

This way, people would have direct influence to start debates on issues and ideas through the philosophical scrutiny of the debate routines, in order to reach informed decisions out of the influence of the people.

Conclusion
While there are many more areas to cover for such a new system of democracy, I think the basics would lead to a much more rationally based government that minimizes bad decisions and keeps most demagogues locked out of power. It demands competence while not locking the door towards influence. It keeps the democratic freedom, even expanding on it, while having a system closer to that of Plato's philosopher-kings.

While not all rules of government look the same, I think the basics of politicians educated in areas important to being leaders and minimizing corruption and irrational actions because of it, is the best step forward to improve upon the current form of representative democracy into taking more epistemic responsibility, i.e an "Epistemic Representative Democracy", or "Epistemic Democracy" for short.

Kenosha Kid

A kind of meritocracy-overseeing-democracy? In principle that's what the UK has, or had. The House of Commons was democratically elected to represent, if you like, the Heart of the nation. The House of Lords provided, in principle, the educated oversight, since the aristocracy were the best educated (really they just represented the interests of the elite), the Mind of the nation if you will. And the Monarch was supposed to be the Soul, giving historical context to all.

It was corrupted from the start and doesn't make much sense anymore, but I've always liked the idea of a self-elected meritocracy providing checks and balances on democratic action. (It would itself need oversight to ensure it remains a representative meritocracy.) It rather relies on people accepting undemocratic judgment though. If something emotive like Brexit failed to pass due to its terrible merit, we'd end up just demonizing then abolishing the meritocratic part entirely.

I think rather than educating the powers that be, would it not be simpler to disqualify uneducated people from executive posts? E.g. the chancellor must hold a doctorate in economics, etc.?

ChatteringMonkey

↪Christoffer

Can't say I really like it, because it's a bit elitist only allowing certain diploma's. And licenses are also always reviewed by people who can be corrupted... which means you're probably just shifting the problem, while creating additional red tape.

But the most fundamental issue I have with it is that I think your diagnosis is wrong. The biggest problem is not education of the politicians IMO, but corruption and nepotism. Solving that is not a question of better education, but of will, or of giving the right incentives.

So what could work to reduce corruption and nepotism?

- financing: make it so that politicians are independent from financing from industry and other powerful lobby groups
- election campaigns: restrict election campaigns to shorter periods so that money becomes less of a factor
- accountability: maybe the biggest problem is that politician aren't held accountable for the things they do. In theory accountability happens through elections, but people hardly know what politicians actually did because of party propaganda, biased media reporting and general complexity of political issues etc.... Not sure how you would solved this, but maybe some kind of fact-based independent review system could be devised that can give the public reliable information of what politicians have done in their term. If you want democracy to work the public needs to be educated, not the politicans.
- political parties: something needs to be done to reduce power of parties, because any parliament of 'representatives' is kind of a joke if parties have that much power, because they invariably end up representing their party and not the people who they are supposed to represent. Maybe make it so that party-leadership are not the ones to decide who gets to be on the elections-list etc etc... to begin with.
- shorter political careers: maybe a maximum duration should be imposed for people to be active at higher political levels, to minimize the potential of politicians building up nepotistic networks.
- media : as the 'third pillar' of democracy a good functioning media is vital to inform the public. Regulate the profession like some other professions, so that they have to uphold certain standards of journalism... or force them to self-regulate, whatever works best. Probably something needs to be done to cut ties with politics also.

These are some of the things that maybe could have some impact on making a less corrupt political system, but I wouldn't count on it... if I learned anything, it's that I never should be surprised by the ingenuity of people to bypass regulation.

Kenosha Kid

The biggest problem is not education of the politicians IMO, but corruption and nepotism. Solving that is not a question of better education, but of will, or of giving the right incentives. — ChatteringMonkey

A government can be fair, anti-nepotic, and still incompetent through sheer ignorance. This seems like a separable problem.

ChatteringMonkey

A government can be fair, anti-nepotic, and still incompetent through sheer ignorance. This seems like a separable problem. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah but competence is irrelevant if they are not fair, anti-nepotic etc... so it seems like something you'd want to tackle first.

Judaka

↪Christoffer

Your suggestions don't seem practical to me. I prefer making voting mandatory because I think it leads towards more moderate leaders, radicals are likely to be a greater percentage of option voting. Polling already exists and I'm not sure what's different about your proposal for it.

You aren't really addressing the major flaws in democracy, we already know we're going to have incompetent politicians. They get voted in as opposed to getting in by merit and whether they keep their jobs isn't necessarily based on whether they do a good job or not. It's a complicated job on top of that, having a degree in philosophy or psychology isn't even likely to help even a little bit.

Identify a real problem and a practical solution, I have no idea what you're even talking about here.

Echarmion

↪Christoffer

I feel there is a curious disconnect between your analysis and your suggestion. You wrote the following about the current problems:

We live in a time when demagogues rule far more than actual leaders. And they have been placed there because of a representative democracy using psychological warfare, propaganda and advertising. In some cases even manipulating people through targeted advertising. The corruption of democracy we've seen in the last couple of decades has become a big problem for the type of system it's supposed to be. With enough resources, you could actually rule a nation as a dictator by manipulating the democratic system behind the curtain, like a wizard of Oz.

Most of this has to do with the politicians being interested in power, rather than knowledge and leadership. The motivations for becoming a politician often starts out with a will to change something and quickly descends into becoming a struggle for power instead. Like a video game where the goal of the game is drowned in meaningless tasks to the point where the game's initial goal becomes meaningless. — Christoffer

None of this seems directly related to education. Rather, the problem seems to be one of virtue. The people that are successful in politics aren't the people we might want as leaders. That suggests to me that we need to change the mechanism behind success in politics to be more in line with our goals.

NOS4A2

↪Christoffer

It sounds like a Noocracy, and it would be difficult to call it Democracy because it excludes people from the political process and denies them power based on their education and certification. Politics would becomes a debate between elites, none of which would be representative of the general polity.

Personally I’d much rather vote for someone picked randomly from the phone book than to be led by some over-educated, certified politician.

Christoffer

I think rather than educating the powers that be, would it not be simpler to disqualify uneducated people from executive posts? E.g. the chancellor must hold a doctorate in economics, etc.? — Kenosha Kid

That is a start perhaps. But disqualifying does not equal the people in power to have the necessary merits to govern the nation. I think a key difference here is that politics starts to conduct philosophical praxis of discussion rather than just having "an education". I also think that its key that the politics education, which is focused on specific parts of what it means to govern, i different from just having "a higher education".

In essence: You don't educate yourself and then chose to become a politician, you chose to become a politician and then educate yourself.

Christoffer

Can't say I really like it, because it's a bit elitist only allowing certain diploma's. And licenses are also always reviewed by people who can be corrupted... which means you're probably just shifting the problem, while creating additional red tape. — ChatteringMonkey

The problem with corruption in the way you describe wouldn't really nullify the benefits of educated politicians. And I wouldn't call it elitists as long as the ability to educate yourself into becoming a politician is available to anyone. Just as I mentioned that different countries have different handling of education, being educated to becoming a politician needs to be (in countries with bad handling of education funding, such as the US) free and available to anyone who wants to pursue it. You can also join the party you are interested in joining, forming proposals and discussing with politicians in parliament, but you cannot be a part of that parliament voting system and be a representative that can be voted into power. So you can still be a part of the parties in power and if you want to pursue a higher position enter the educational program for that. I don't see a problem with having a higher demand of education like this. It's not really elitist, it's focusing the political praxis into effective measures while minimizing incompetence from the power positions.

It wouldn't exclude anyone from politics, it focuses politics into better praxis.

The biggest problem is not education of the politicians IMO, but corruption and nepotism. Solving that is not a question of better education, but of will, or of giving the right incentives. — ChatteringMonkey

Those are two different problems really. To educate politicians has little to do with corruption. As you mentioned, you could be corrupt and conduct nepotism in a system with education for politicians, so battling those problems are really a separate issue than what I'm fundamentally talking about here. I'm trying to focus parliamentary politics into philosophical praxis so that the incompetent mud throwing that can be witnessed in many parliaments today disappears in favor of better dialectic scrutiny.

If a system is corrupt, it is always corrupt, whatever system it is. What you say is like saying that democracy, autocracy and communism are the same because all of them can be corrupted and feature nepotism, but the truth is that some are better for the people than others and some of them are easier to corrupt than others. I would argue that it's harder to corrupt epistemic democracy than regular representative democracy. But even then, it's not really an issue that this system tries to tackle.

Christoffer

Yeah but competence is irrelevant if they are not fair, anti-nepotic etc... so it seems like something you'd want to tackle first. — ChatteringMonkey

You can tackle both at the same time and epistemic democracy has far better methods to tackle corruption and nepotism than regular representative democracy, so it's a start, not a solution. I'm with you that corruption is a problem, but it's a separate branch of political philosophy that is present in any political system and can be tackled intellectually independent of which is present.

Kenosha Kid

In essence: You don't educate yourself and then chose to become a politician, you chose to become a politician and then educate yourself. — Christoffer

Are we still talking university-type education here? If so, I don't see how education after election avoids the problem you ascribe to disqualification. You still end up with a politician with a relevant education.

It would circumvent NOS4A2's point about meritocratic elitism keeping out those denied equal education opportunities, since you would be elected without necessarily having been satisfactorily through the education system, whereas a meritocracy would favour the privileged.

What about practicalities? What does an elected official do, government-wise, between being elected and graduating? Do they still govern without competence? Or is it a long game? What if, by the time the elected official graduates, the electorate no longer want her? Isn't that just voting in beneficiaries of presumably state-funded education? And is degree level really the best we can hope for? I'd rather my economy be in the hands of a doctor of economics, in the same way I'd want my surgery in the hands of a doctor of medicine.

Christoffer

Your suggestions don't seem practical to me. I prefer making voting mandatory because I think it leads towards more moderate leaders, radicals are likely to be a greater percentage of option voting. Polling already exists and I'm not sure what's different about your proposal for it. — Judaka

I agree that mandatory voting is key to get better democratic representation of a nation's wills. But I don't see how that is an issue in epistemic democracy since both representative and epistemic democracy would benefit from mandatory voting without nullifying or changing the benefits that epistemic has over normal representative democracy?

You aren't really addressing the major flaws in democracy, we already know we're going to have incompetent politicians. They get voted in as opposed to getting in by merit and whether they keep their jobs isn't necessarily based on whether they do a good job or not. It's a complicated job on top of that, having a degree in philosophy or psychology isn't even likely to help even a little bit. — Judaka

How do you get incompetence when you have the education needed for a job? Yes, we can have incompetent doctors, but compare that to having doctors without any education.

Also, in the system I propose, politicians don't get in by merit, they are still voted in. You seem to miss that it's still a democratic system, only that the ones being elected have an education specifically addressed for political practices. The problem today is that politicians have no education in areas that broadly affect your ability to form rational conclusions in debates or lead with respect to balanced knowledge. If you have an education within the areas proposed you at least have a baseline for conducting discussion and rational thought through a method more based in unbiased thinking than someone without any such knowledge.

When you say that it's "not likely to help even a little bit", that is a seriously flawed rational conclusion. Are you really certain that through my system it won't help anything at all? I'm not sure you proposed counter-arguments to conclude this system to have no impact at all. And I don't think you really read through it all in detail since you seem to miss aspects like merit not being the reason to be elected, but being a foundation for your job if you are elected.

Christoffer

None of this seems directly related to education. Rather, the problem seems to be one of virtue. The people that are successful in politics aren't the people we might want as leaders. That suggests to me that we need to change the mechanism behind success in politics to be more in line with our goals. — Echarmion

I understand what you mean, education isn't a source that eradicates the people who only seek to be politicians out of the need for power alone. However, I think that the requirement of education can A) make people who have that ambition only to reach power either give up their attempts and quit or B) reprogram them into proper praxis and reduce such primary goals. I also think that because it's not only about education but how debates in parliament are handled, they wouldn't be able to survive such fact-based scrutiny. How can someone who doesn't apply their education survive debates with the fact-checker? They would be humiliated in parliament if they have attempted to bypass the praxis of parliament.

Christoffer

It sounds like a Noocracy, and it would be difficult to call it Democracy because it excludes people from the political process and denies them power based on their education and certification. — NOS4A2

I'm not sure if you actually read everything I wrote since I mention Plato's idea of philosopher kings and why that in itself doesn't work. Instead, I proposed a synthesis.

No one is excluded, in what way is someone excluded?

Politics would becomes a debate between elites, none of which would be representative of the general polity. — NOS4A2

Did you read the entire argument?

Personally I’d much rather vote for someone picked randomly from the phone book than to be led by some over-educated, certified politician. — NOS4A2

Did you read the entire argument?

You form a counter-argument in a way that seems to strawman what I wrote rather than actually adress it dialectically.

Christoffer

I don't see how education after election avoids the problem you ascribe to disqualification. — Kenosha Kid

Are you elected as soon as you chose to become a politician? No, you chose to be a politician and then run in elections. If you chose to become a politician in an epistemic democracy, you have to go through 3-4 years of education in order to run in an election or be part of the parliament.

And since I think that people in here are very used to a very specific form of education, i.e you need to pay for it yourself, what I'm talking about is education is free of charge that anyone can get. Just like in countries with better educational systems, but as a form of democratic responsibility, education to become a politician is always free, even in free-market systems.

Remember, it's not "just education", it's a specific education towards being a politician, just like education to become a medical doctor.

whereas a meritocracy would favour the privileged. — Kenosha Kid

But it can't if you have an educational system that is free of charge. If anyone can get the education to become a politician, it won't favor the privileged. I understand that in a country where education is usually the result of being able to independently finance it, a society with free education or a society where at least the education to become a politician is free, there are no barriers. You cannot get privileged education if it's not based on the economy of the student. If the state secure housing and education free of charge for anyone educating themselves to become a politician, then you aren't bound by privileges.

What does an elected official do, government-wise, between being elected and graduating? — Kenosha Kid

You have this in the wrong direction. You educate yourself and are available to be elected, you cannot be elected before education. Please, check the argument again. You do not get elected and then educate yourself, but you can be part of the parties outside of parliament and being a minister of something, meaning you cannot participate in voting in parliament or being a minister of something, but you can be part of pushing the party outside of it. If you want to be part of the ones actually voting in parliament, making decisions and being ministers of certain areas, you have to have a political license, which is given through passing education.

It's simple, you can be a politician, you can involve yourself in politics, but you cannot be part of decision-making without education. If you aspire to do that, you have to get your political license and it is free of charge to get, but you need to educate yourself through 3-4 years of education within the areas I proposed.

Echarmion

However, I think that the requirement of education can A) make people who have that ambition only to reach power either give up their attempts and quit — Christoffer

Requiring several years of study might dissuade some people. But then the higher positions in politics tend to be taken up by older people anyways. Most people need to travel up through various local and minor posts before they reach the spotlight, and there is frequently a lot of not at all glamorous work involved. So I am not sure whether people who want power but are unwilling to put in the effort are actually all that common in politics. Sure you have populists which get catapulted up out of nowhere, but it's not clear yet whether that will be a major feature of democracies going forward.

B) reprogram them into proper praxis and reduce such primary goals. — Christoffer

I am very sceptical of that line of thinking. It feel like it could easily go the other way, too. A form of modern aristocracy forming around these courses where people are socialised as part of an elite. There is already arguably a problem with certain prestigious universities forming networks of contacts that lift people into high places regardless of their skills.

I also think that because it's not only about education but how debates in parliament are handled, they wouldn't be able to survive such fact-based scrutiny. How can someone who doesn't apply their education survive debates with the fact-checker? They would be humiliated in parliament if they have attempted to bypass the praxis of parliament. — Christoffer

I think that changes to the way that debates and policy decisions work is, in general, the right approach to the problem. The problem with any neutral element of a parliament is, of course, how it is controlled. It's easy to imagine a "fact checker" neutered by onerous requirements to establish a "fact", or debate simply avoiding concrete proposals that are subject to checking.

I think that, as a starting point, it would be helpful to look more closely at the actual structure of incentives that surrounds politicians. For example, maybe it's too easy to convince a politician to vote for some lobbyists proposal because, in the grand scheme of things, their vote won't be noticed anyways and they figure they can't really spend the time to figure out the consequences either. Having parts of parliament with more clearly defined roles and responsibilities might help with that.

Christoffer

Requiring several years of study might dissuade some people. But then the higher positions in politics tend to be taken up by older people anyways. Most people need to travel up through various local and minor posts before they reach the spotlight, and there is frequently a lot of not at all glamorous work involved. So I am not sure whether people who want power but are unwilling to put in the effort are actually all that common in politics. Sure you have populists which get catapulted up out of nowhere, but it's not clear yet whether that will be a major feature of democracies going forward. — Echarmion

First, would you agree that epistemic democracy is an improvement over representative democracy?
Second, what are your suggestions to battle the issues you brought up within the context of epistemic democracy? I'm seriously asking here, since it's important to address the issues you brought up.

I am very sceptical of that line of thinking. It feel like it could easily go the other way, too. A form of modern aristocracy forming around these courses where people are socialised as part of an elite. There is already arguably a problem with certain prestigious universities forming networks of contacts that lift people into high places regardless of their skills. — Echarmion

Agreed, what do you think can be done to battle this? Can we make adjustments to the education in order to minimize these types of elitism? Even if people lift others regardless of their skills, can the skills be at focus so that them alone are needed for succession? How would someone be able to debate in parliament with the fact-checker without finishing the level of knowledge needed for it? Even if they finish the education, they can't form arguments with biases in parliament and they can't skew facts. Fact skewing would dismiss an argument in parliament.

I think that changes to the way that debates and policy decisions work is, in general, the right approach to the problem. The problem with any neutral element of a parliament is, of course, how it is controlled. It's easy to imagine a "fact checker" neutered by onerous requirements to establish a "fact", or debate simply avoiding concrete proposals that are subject to checking. — Echarmion

Can you form a rational argument without facts? I don't think you can. And any attempt would highlight a bias or fallacy-based argument. The "fact-checker" is also able to dismiss arguments not formed to philosophical scrutiny. Reason being that in order for you to propose something in parliament, it needs to have a logical argument attached to it. If all in there are educated in philosophy and the other areas I listed up, they would all have the tools to form proper arguments for decisions and the debates in there would be focused on the rational rather than the populistic.

maybe it's too easy to convince a politician to vote for some lobbyists proposal — Echarmion

I think that in an epistemic democracy you cannot propose something that hasn't been put through philosophical debate. Meaning that there can be lobbyists, but if there isn't a logical argument behind it, it won't be able to reach voting.

But I think you bring up good points in this, things to address. I just think that because epistemic democracy is changing very fundamental practices of how representative democracy works, we need to view these issues through that lens.

Kenosha Kid

Are you elected as soon as you chose to become a politician? — Christoffer

Earlier you said you don't need to be educated to be a politician, only to be elected, so the election appeared to be the crucial point, not the career move. The fact that the degree might be funded by the politician's party also suggests that.

But I guess you mean that if a politician wishes to stand for election, he or she cannot do so without the requisite education level. In other words, they are disqualified.

What your idea (putting aside things like limiting the degree to philosophy and such) really does in addition is provide a framework for politicians to get free degrees if they're ambitious. I'd rather they get them because that field is what they're driven by.

As for philosophy, it's only the right grounding for governance according to... uh... philosophers :) I think education in philosophy, psychology, sociology, physics, and history would all be beneficial to potential leaders and representatives, but I'd still prefer the woman specialising in law to be a specialist in law, the man specialising in economics to be a specialist in economics. Nothing against philosophy graduates, but, to follow your own analogy, I'd rather my surgeon have a medical doctorate than a two-two in philosophy.

Judaka

↪Christoffer

Doctors don't just get an education, they have to pass exams that show their competency, then they need to do internships and then if they got past all that then they still need to do their job at least somewhat competently or they'll lose their licence. You can't compare what it takes to become a doctor with what it takes to complete a philosophy course.

I mean it's just silliness to begin with to say that a philosophy or history course will even help being a politician in the first place. One can't really compare that with studying medicine to practice medicine.

Also, I misread your post and thought you said people would need a voting licence and that's why I made the comments about mandatory voting, my mistake there.

Anyway, yes I am pretty certain that none of your suggestions will help, I think most of them already exist. Trump is fact-checked all the time by the media and his supporters don't care, why does putting a fact-checker in parliament make any difference. The politician licence is a waste of time, none of those classes you suggested are likely to help a politician do their jobs better and I don't think that the problem with democracy is lack of education for politicians in the first place.

Politicians already debate issues in parliament, they debate on the media, they debate in elections, how much more debating do we need.

Your suggestions are either redundant or superfluous and really I think you've failed to address real problems in representative democracy in the first place. I think mandatory voting alone would probably stop many of the totally unqualified people who are getting elected recently.

Christoffer

Earlier you said you don't need to be educated to be a politician, only to be elected, so the election appeared to be the crucial point, not the career move. The fact that the degree might be funded by the politician's party also suggests that. — Kenosha Kid

Not sure what you mean here? The education to become a politician is supposed to be free for all. In some countries without free education, that might mean funding from the political party itself.

Point being that anyone will be able to get the education, not a rich elite.

But I guess you mean that if a politician wishes to stand for election, he or she cannot do so without the requisite education level. In other words, they are disqualified. — Kenosha Kid

Yes, in order to be elected in a democratic election, you need a political license that proves a certain level of competence for the job. Point being that anyone can get that education, but you need it for the job as a representative.

What your idea (putting aside things like limiting the degree to philosophy and such) really does, in addition, is to provide a framework for politicians to get free degrees if they're ambitious. I'd rather they get them because that field is what they're driven by. — Kenosha Kid

I get what you mean that they should be educated in the field they are a minister for, but as we know, most parliament politics is handled by a vote through all present in the parliament. So it doesn't really matter if you get a spear-headed education for a role in politics, everyone needs to, for example, know economics in order to vote on such things. That's why I proposed an education specifically aimed at the broad spectrum of what politicians need in order to be competent in their job.

I'd still prefer the woman specialising in law to be a specialist in law, the man specialising in economics to be a specialist in economics. Nothing against philosophy graduates, but, to follow your own analogy, I'd rather my surgeon have a medical doctorate than a two-two in philosophy. — Kenosha Kid

Your point here touches upon an important factor and that is "what does politics require in a field of education?". Philosophy, the broad spectrum of it, actually incorporate areas that are needed for political praxis. You get the knowledge in dialectics and how to form arguments in debates free of biases and fallacies. You learn the complexities of subjects that are key to political decisions. You learn important ideas that are the groundwork for political laws and legislations.

Specialized knowledge doesn't form the broad ability to debate and understand complex dynamic issues in society. You can handle specific tasks with specialized knowledge, but philosophical knowledge would mean you understand how to think outside of your own biases. This is why I think politicians need a deep understanding of philosophy and philosophical praxis and why it's important that it exists as a praxis within parliament as well.

Christoffer

Doctors don't just get an education, they have to pass exams that show their competency, then they need to do internships and then if they got past all that then they still need to do their job at least somewhat competently or they'll lose their licence. You can't compare what it takes to become a doctor with what it takes to complete a philosophy course. — Judaka

It's not a philosophy course, it's an education for becoming a politician. It's a new field that doesn't exist outside the concept of epistemic democracy and therefore you can't judge the level of demand that education has on itself. What I meant was that if you apply the level of demands that a doctor have on their education based on their responsibility the job implies, onto the job of a politician, then you understand the level of needed responsibility put upon politicians.

As I also listed, philosophy is one part of the education for politicians.

I mean it's just silliness to begin with to say that a philosophy or history course will even help being a politician in the first place. One can't really compare that with studying medicine to practice medicine. — Judaka

Why not? Why would philosophy, history, economy, psychology not be crucial areas to learn in order to be an educated politician? If you would name the fields of competence that a politician needs to have in order to be an unbiased political person in government, what would those be? Right now, politicians have no requirements at all, is that better than a baseline of education for the job?

How is it really different educating yourself for a job like a politician that can affect millions of people compared to a doctor who's competence handles a few dozen lives? I would argue that a politician has enormous power over people in society, so having that responsibility needs the knowledge to govern in an unbiased way.

Anyway, yes I am pretty certain that none of your suggestions will help, I think most of them already exist. Trump is fact-checked all the time by the media and his supporters don't care, why does putting a fact-checker in parliament make any difference. — Judaka

Having a fact-checker in parliament means that if you present something in parliament that wouldn't get past that person, you can't propose it in parliament. It makes a huge difference. If you can't argue in a rational matter with facts backing it up, you can't pull through a decision you want to make.

I guess that this makes more sense in more parliament driven nations than nations like the US where a president has more power. But try adjusting the form to the US system and see how it would act out.

The politician licence is a waste of time, none of those classes you suggested are likely to help a politician do their jobs better and I don't think that the problem with democracy is lack of education for politicians in the first place. — Judaka

You don't agree that democracies are filled with demagogues and that none of them can pull through any philosophical scrutiny for the decisions they try to vote through? Don't you agree that there are plenty of politicians who are not competent for their job?

Politicians already debate issues in parliament, they debate on the media, they debate in elections, how much more debating do we need. — Judaka

Debating through philosophical scrutiny, fact-checked, unbiased and without fallacies, is not at all close to what we see at the moment. The level of debates at the moment is a mud-throwing spectacle, not proper debate. I think that people have normalized political debate into the mud-throwing spectacle and forgot that debates should lead to some informed place of knowledge. If we had philosophical rules of conduct to these debates, they would look very very different.

I hope you get what I mean here? Philosophical dialectics aren't the type of spectacle debates we see in media today, it's aimed at figuring out the truth of a subject, not what's popular.

Your suggestions are either redundant or superfluous and really I think you've failed to address real problems in representative democracy in the first place. I think mandatory voting alone would probably stop many of the totally unqualified people who are getting elected recently. — Judaka

I think that you haven't really taken a step back and looked at what I'm really proposing with epistemic democracy. I do agree with you fully that mandatory voting is positive for democracy, but I think that my idea about epistemic democracy handles issues more related to the praxis of government between elections rather than elections themselves.

Judaka

↪Christoffer

I don't think that the demagogues you're talking about would be changed by this course, I don't think that the already educated people who wanted to get into politics would need the course. I don't think any of the things you listed to be studied would actually help somebody getting into politics.

There are already plenty of competent people who want to get into government, the thing is, democracy hasn't changed, the morons who got elected are still going to get elected and they're still going to be morons. You can't avoid this and honestly, I have no faith that the people you like would be people that I thought well of nor that the people you dislike are people that I also dislike, that's democracy for you.

I don't know what kind of fact-checker you're talking about, someone with complete authority to tell people to stfu if they say something wrong? I'm not sure how practical that would be and if they don't have that authority then I'm not sure how it's different from normal fact-checkers.

Debating through philosophical scrutiny, fact-checked, unbiased and without fallacies, is not at all close to what we see at the moment. The level of debates at the moment is a mud-throwing spectacle, not proper debate. I think that people have normalized political debate into the mud-throwing spectacle and forgot that debates should lead to some informed place of knowledge. If we had philosophical rules of conduct to these debates, they would look very very different. — Christoffer

The thing is that with the Trump debates, for example, not only was it broadly criticised that he made stuff up but also that he changed his opinions and that his answers to questions were vague and nobody knew what his actual policies were or how he planned to do what he said he'd do. Not only did it not matter but they ended up giving him so much coverage that it ended up just helping him become more popular.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets by because basically as far as the left is concerned the intentions justify the means. She has no clue what she's talking about but it simply doesn't matter to people. All of this is already out in the open and I don't know what you're planning to differently, it seems like you just want to strongarm voters.

I don't share your respect for philosophy either, I don't assume practitioners of philosophy are rational, intelligent thinkers. Discussions on this forum are filled with fallacies and few here have any fucking clue about the facts. In my experience, philosophers are the worst when it comes to facts because they think complex questions can be answered with baseless theories and morality.

So what I don't really understand is how epistemic democracy is different from media fact-checking. Are you proposing that someone is tasked with telling politicians in parilament how to speak, how to argue, to shut up when they're wrong and correct them etc?

Christoffer

I don't think that the demagogues you're talking about would be changed by this course, I don't think that the already educated people who wanted to get into politics would need the course. I don't think any of the things you listed to be studied would actually help somebody getting into politics. — Judaka

1) Demagogues won't bother with education as much as people invested in politics for reasons beyond themselves. If it takes effort to handle the praxis of politics and the praxis of parliament demands philosophical scrutiny, you can definitely filter out some of the bad apples in this regard. Not all, but most. Most notably, more than the current system.
2) Educated people doesn't mean they are educated in the subjects needed for politics. Being "Educated" doesn't mean anything outside of what the education is about. I proposed a foundation of education that is connected to what it means to govern and handle politics. Other lines of education does not focus on the nature of politics in the same way.
3) Do you study to get into something or do you study for the knowledge applied towards the job you do? I think you view education in a different way if you frame it as a hurdle to get a job and not a requirement for the praxis of the job. It is needed not only for the job as a politician but for being able to handle the praxis of parliamentary discussions. If you don't have that education you won't be able to handle the interpellation debates in parliament, so how can you be a politician if you don't know those things within this system?

the morons who got elected are still going to get elected and they're still going to be morons. — Judaka

Not in an epistemic democracy. You are talking about the status quo, I'm talking about a fundamental change in the democratic system. So the morons can't be elected if that is changed.

I don't know what kind of fact-checker you're talking about, someone with complete authority to tell people to stfu if they say something wrong? — Judaka

Socratic dialectic praxis. They will have the ability to fact check information proposed in arguments in real-time during debates and if someone uses false facts they are dismissed from the argument for 5-10 minutes re-working their argument before continuing. These fact-checkers are also trained in spotting biases and fallacies and can stop an argument if it doesn't hold up to philosophical scrutiny.

This is why you can't really smurf yourself into parliament without the necessary education to handle these debates.

I'm not sure how it's different from normal fact-checkers. — Judaka

What normal fact-checkers? There are none in parliament. The debates taking place, as of now, happens sometimes between politicians who aren't even close to educated and with no fact-checkers in the room whatsoever. There's never a praxis of rational thought conducted in parliaments today.

The thing is that with the Trump debates, for example, not only was it broadly criticised that he made stuff up but also that he changed his opinions and that his answers to questions were vague and nobody knew what his actual policies were or how he planned to do what he said he'd do. Not only did it not matter but they ended up giving him so much coverage that it ended up just helping him become more popular. — Judaka

Don't see the relevance to the topic here really. He is a narcissistic demagogue sure, and he gets popular because of populism. Epistemic democracy would make it impossible for someone like him to reach his position.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gets by because basically as far as the left is concerned the intentions justify the means. She has no clue what she's talking about but it simply doesn't matter to people. All of this is already out in the open and I don't know what you're planning to differently, it seems like you just want to strongarm voters. — Judaka

What does this have to do with epistemic democracy?

I don't share your respect for philosophy either, I don't assume practitioners of philosophy are rational, intelligent thinkers. — Judaka

People educated in philosophical methods have better understanding of rational argumentation and with a fact-checker in parliament, you get debates more focused on rational thought and facts rather than the clusterfuck of current political debates.

Discussions on this forum are filled with fallacies and few here have any fucking clue about the facts. In my experience, philosophers are the worst when it comes to facts because they think complex questions can be answered with baseless theories and morality. — Judaka

Are the people on this forum academic philosophers? If you base your opinion on your experiences on this forum, then you really don't know what philosophical praxis is about. This forum is a mash between schooled philosophers, auto-didactic philosophers and uneducated attention-seekers who have no knowledge at all.

Would you agree that philosophical praxis of dialectic debates and discussions are better than just uneducated arguments between two opposing sides without any form of guidance in method? I would strongly argue that having philosophical praxis of dialectic debates is light years better than what we see in politics today. As per Plato's argument against democracy.

So what I don't really understand is how epistemic democracy is different from media fact-checking. Are you proposing that someone is tasked with telling politicians in parilament how to speak, how to argue, to shut up when they're wrong and correct them etc? — Judaka

Media can be corrupted. Media right now is working towards their financers, not towards truth. While I defend media in terms of being better at fact-checking than the common citizen, they are so far from being unbiased and properly fact-checking. The people also need to interpret media correctly and accept their fact-checking, which they today don't do.

What I'm proposing is politicians schooled to be politicians, available to all, free of charge, but demanding of them to make an effort in philosophical scrutiny, both during education, but also in play during work within the parliament.

The philosophical praxis of debate and dialectics is not "someone telling them how to argue", it is method. How to propose decisions in informed, rational matters that need to be proposed with an argument that holds against biases and fallacies. The fact-checker checks if politicians in parliaments have or don't have proper arguments for their proposals. If they don't, they have to adjust them.

I think you kind of strawman my argument into something it's not. I'd recommend that you look through my OP again and ask yourself if that system is an improvement over the current system or not. Of course, I'm probably coming from another perspective and form of government than the US has, but ask yourself, how would things be if the educational requirement I proposed in my OP were applied to presidents? If a president is required to have that education in order to be available to that position, why would that be worse than how things are today?

The key thing is that you argue specifics as counter-arguments against a broad change in the democratic system. You use arguments that focus on details in which you say that "you think it wouldn't improve" instead of looking at it like "will it improve against what we have right now"?

I'm not proposing a utopia, but an improvement on the status quo of the democratic system. You have to ask yourself: is it an improvement or not? Not whether some problems will persist, but whether there will be improvements to politics. I think that everyone would agree that if politicians were better educated in philosophy, they would more likely make informed decisions compared to those without philosophical education, right? I would argue that is a pretty logical deduction of the matter.

Kenosha Kid

Philosophy, the broad spectrum of it, actually incorporate areas that are needed for political praxis. You get the knowledge in dialectics and how to form arguments in debates free of biases and fallacies. You learn the complexities of subjects that are key to political decisions. You learn important ideas that are the groundwork for political laws and legislations. — Christoffer

Yes, but these are a philosopher's ideas of what's most important which, unsurprisingly, bend toward philosophy more than pragmatic skills of governance.

Christoffer

Yes, but these are a philosopher's ideas of what's most important which, unsurprisingly, bend toward philosophy more than pragmatic skills of governance. — Kenosha Kid

Is approaching subjects philosophically biased or unbiased? You speak of philosophy as a form of biased ideal and politics in government as being neutrally pragmatic?

Isn't the neutral approach the philosophical approach? You can't have philosophical praxis without the demand of an undbiased dialectic approach.

Judaka

↪Christoffer

You've proposed a 3-4 year degree split into several large topics, you have to be realistic about how deep they're getting into those topics. People from this course are not going to be on the level of career philosophers and psychologists or experts on history as a result of this course. How can a 3-4 year course on so many topics be advanced in these topics?

So what you're giving these politicians is just an introduction to topics which don't really have anything to do with being a politician. It sounds less intense than the average undergraduate degree. Why are you acting like people coming out of this degree are going to be experts in these topics? They're going to be receiving less of a philosophy education than what you get from an undergraduate philosophy degree.

So someone three or four years out of high school gets their politician licence and they're now a competent politician lol. Not only are they not going to be remotely competent but I don't think they're even slightly better off than before they began this course. How you gunna compare a doctor with a politician licence holder.

Demagogues would still exist as politicians still need to get voted in and they aren't suddenly experts on all topics related to the economy, industries, infrastructure, history, geopolitics, budgets, taxation, foreign nations, policing and any other topic they might speak on or be responsible for.

As for "parliament praxis", it sounds nice but I am concerned about how practical this suggestion is. I am unconvinced by the licence, I'm also unconvinced by the fact-checker and the main reason why is that I'm not sure that this fact-checker wouldn't just get into arguments. Alternatively, this person has absolute authority and just sin bins people.

You say biases and fallacies aren't allowed but I don't know, I'm sceptical. Aren't you at all scared by the fact-checker? If they aren't satisfied with your argument then you're just sent out of parliament or not allowed to speak?

I don't really have any faith in what is essentially less than an undergraduate philosophy student, I don't expect an increase in how informed they are on things or that they'll be impressively logical or even good debaters. I have no idea where your self-assurance on this is coming from. The licence is just a waste of peoples' time, not really making things worse or better.

Kenosha Kid

Isn't the neutral approach the philosophical approach? You can't have philosophical praxis without the demand of an undbiased dialectic approach. — Christoffer

In all honesty, I've rarely met a neutral philosophy graduate. But that's not the point. Suggesting that a philosophy degree is the best way to derive great economic policy is like suggesting someone learn Latin if they plan to move to Spain. Yes, you'll learn lots about some of the underpinnings, but you'll not have expertise, and most of what you'll learn will be irrelevant. Would you accept a heart transplant from a biologist?

ChatteringMonkey

I'm trying to focus parliamentary politics into philosophical praxis so that the incompetent mud throwing that can be witnessed in many parliaments today disappears in favor of better dialectic scrutiny. — Christoffer

Okay, even if we would try to bracket the corruption and nepotism question, I still think this misses the mark to some extend. The mud throwing is not a consequence of incompetence primary, but of ruling-party/opposition-party dynamics. They see parlement as an arena wherein they fight for the favour of the crowd... and election cycles and the principle of democracy gives them the incentive to see it that way. And so I think if you don't change that incentive, that dynamic won't really go away.

Another point I want to make is that you maybe underestimate the 'dialectic scrutiny' that happens behind the scenes. A politician is no isolated island that relies solely on his or her abilities. Usually they have a personal staff of various experts they can rely on, and more importantly they are part of parties that certainly have teams of experts in every domain. My point being here that I don't think they are really incapable of having a good discussion of the issues in parliament to begin with... it's just that that is not what is expected of them. Positions on issues are usually well scrutinized and determined beforehand along partylines, and what happens then in parliament is not a matter of dialectics anymore, but of rethorics.

Christoffer

You've proposed a 3-4 year degree split into several large topics, you have to be realistic about how deep they're getting into those topics. People from this course are not going to be on the level of career philosophers and psychologists or experts on history as a result of this course. How can a 3-4 year course on so many topics be advanced in these topics? — Judaka

3-4 year minimum. We could figure out the necessary length of education. Maybe because a politician with power over the people is a high-risk job as my example with a doctor's medical degree and license, it needs to be longer, just like for complex jobs like being a doctor. 5-6 years?
The education does not need to spearhead the knowledge like for example the topic of history wouldn't lead you to a master's degree in history. All the topics and courses are tailored around the requirements of a politician.

Like for instance, what is the most important part of philosophy for a politician to have if we prioritize? Aside from the basics in philosophy, ethics and political philosophy are probably the most important parts. Moral philosophy, justice, political theory, and economy. While knowledge in dialectic debates is a preparation for the actual praxis of parliament.

I could write a book surrounding getting all the details down about epistemic democracy but needed to keep things short here.

So what you're giving these politicians is just an introduction to topics which don't really have anything to do with being a politician. — Judaka

You are right in that these things don't have anything to do with being a politician within the current form of government or parliament of representative democracies. But this is a new system of democracy aimed at having all members of parliament educated in areas which relate to how we reach truth and rational conclusions about different topics.

The knowledge required to be a part of parliament or government helps to reduce or get rid of politicians not able to dialectically balance complex issues in society before making proposals. While the nature of parliamentary debates is changed into a more philosophical dialectic with much higher standards of arguments than they have now. In order to lead a country, make decisions or vote in parliament on complex subjects the education prepares the necessary tools of practice while the methods of debate prepare for how parliamentary procedures.

Why are you acting like people coming out of this degree are going to be experts in these topics? — Judaka

They are not going to be experts or have master's degrees in those topics, they will have a political license. A doctor working in a hospital is for instance not educated to do medical research, they are trained in medicine in terms of repetition of practices. If a master's degree in philosophy is what you get for studying philosophy specifically and then be able to philosophical research in academia, getting a political license is closer to the doctors medical license than the researcher of medicine or biology.
They are two different things involving the same areas of knowledge.

Not only are they not going to be remotely competent but I don't think they're even slightly better off than before they began this course. — Judaka

How so? If a politician comes from no education and becomes a parliamentary politician or even minister with power over society, how is that [i"]the same"[/i] as someone coming from this type of education? You also have a changed parliamentary practice that requires knowledge in philosophical debate. An uneducated person in that place wouldn't be able to propose anything in parliament or debate anything they want to pursue as a proposal since they would be unable to hold the level of praxis needed in such debates. It's a new system, not just the education part.

Demagogues would still exist as politicians still need to get voted in and they aren't suddenly experts on all topics related to the economy, industries, infrastructure, history, geopolitics, budgets, taxation, foreign nations, policing and any other topic they might speak on or be responsible for. — Judaka

Is that what I'm proposing here? That they will be experts? No, I propose a level of education to minimize the number of demagogues and incompetent politicians. You can still have incompetent doctors, so should we then just get rid of educations for becoming a doctor? No, we have educations for doctors because it's a high-risk job that can risk people's lives if done by an amateur. Why wouldn't parliamentary and government practice be any different in this regard?

Proposing a system that improves upon the standards of representative democracy we have now, is not equal to creating a utopian democratic system. I think that you are making a fallacy with the idea that "because epistemic doesn't make experts of politicians it is not better than the status quo." Are you certain that epistemic democracy would have no improvement on governments and parliamentary practices?

I'm also unconvinced by the fact-checker and the main reason why is that I'm not sure that this fact-checker wouldn't just get into arguments. Alternatively, this person has absolute authority and just sin bins people. — Judaka

Doesn't the current speaker of the house has the same kind of power initially? The fact-checkers job is to review data mentioned in arguments and make sure that the correct data is used while being an expert on biases and fallacies so that if someone makes arguments without the required philosophical scrutiny, they need to rephrase their argument. If you listen to politicians in parliament debate about issues today, they are rarely doing even close to an adequate job if the intention is to reach a truth the parliament can vote on.

Epistemic democracy demands much higher quality in parliamentary debates, which require politicians in those debates to have education on such philosophical scrutiny while being reviewed by someone who's specific job is to review the quality of arguments used. While this sounds like taking up more time than the system right now, just think of Brexit and check the debates that went on about that and how long that took. It won't take up more time, it will focus the arguments and reduce the time before parliamentary voting on a subject. And since all in parliament have the same required education, they are educated in how to analyze the arguments presented in order to form a voting decision better.

Epistemic democracy puts a higher demand on the quality of praxis within parliament, it puts a higher demand on the decision making being based on rational arguments rather than being a "popularity contest".

You say biases and fallacies aren't allowed but I don't know, I'm sceptical. Aren't you at all scared by the fact-checker? If they aren't satisfied with your argument then you're just sent out of parliament or not allowed to speak? — Judaka

No, you are not sent out. As I said, you get a request to rephrase your argument. In essence, if you present the wrong data or if you present an argument where you jump to conclusions and don't back it up in any rational way, the fact-checker can speak up and point these things out, give you 5-10 minutes to re-phrase the argument correctly or the choice to postpone until next time if you need more time to change the argument. This doesn't mean you are silenced or that the debate is over and the other side won because of it, because the higher quality of praxis is about reaching closer to truth instead of just having winner or losers in debates. As mentioned, getting away from the popularity contest and put an effort into increasing the quality of rational arguments.

Imagine if there was such a person on this forum when doing more serious philosophical discourse. Someone who will mark your argument where you make biases and fallacies, who would point out that you might need to rephrase your argument if you have logical holes in them or facts that are wrong. I would argue that such a person is helpful, not a hindrance. Especially if we are talking about facts. Sometimes there can be a discussion going on for pages and pages based on someone's faulty facts and the entire discussion rendered meaningless because of it. Which is often what happens in parliamentary debates if someone presents faulty facts.

I don't really have any faith in what is essentially less than an undergraduate philosophy student, I don't expect an increase in how informed they are on things or that they'll be impressively logical or even good debaters. I have no idea where your self-assurance on this is coming from. The licence is just a waste of peoples' time, not really making things worse or better. — Judaka

Is a medical license a waste of time? Is driving licenses a waste of time? You can be a doctor without knowing a thing about medical research and biology, you can drive a car without ever being a racing pro. I think you are making a black/white fallacy out of this, in which you are unable to see the middle ground of it. Will epistemic democracy be a utopia? No. Will it be the solution to all political problems? No. Will it improve the quality of parliament and government praxis? In all logical sense, yes.

I understand your skepticism, but to say that a political license out of education for it won't matter at all and that a new standard of praxis in parliament won't change anything from how it's done right now isn't very true is it?

Christoffer

Suggesting that a philosophy degree is the best way to derive great economic policy is like suggesting someone learn Latin if they plan to move to Spain. Yes, you'll learn lots about some of the underpinnings, but you'll not have expertise, and most of what you'll learn will be irrelevant. Would you accept a heart transplant from a biologist? — Kenosha Kid

What is the difference between a parliamentary politician in representative democracies today and someone in an epistemic democracy? Based on the educational foundation I proposed. Are current representative politicians experts in economy? The education behind the political license isn't meant to make them experts, it's meant to make them educated in how to review complex things in society, the broad spectrum, to see all moving parts, not just one. The education is meant for them to be prepared to debate such complexities without biases and fallacies to increase the quality of parliamentary praxis.

I think you misunderstand the reason of having the education. It's not meant to make them experts in economy or history, it's meant to make them experts in political duties. Right now we have politics in parliament who might not even have a basic high degree in anything. How is that better?

Evolving Democracy towards Epistemic Responsibility

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions