Nice to see the discussion has shifted from philosophy (qua discipline) to aesthetics and culture - as it should in any discussion of postmodernism. — StreetlightX

But postmodernism is still broader than just some conclusions easily dismissive. The link between psychology and postmodern ideas of concepts, language and perspectives of reality makes for some truth values in their conclusions. I'm not a big fan of the extreme conclusion about language being "everything", but as a form of skepticism about theories and our perception of truth, it gives us a way to view our own ideas in yet another perspective in order to test their falsifiability.

It also gives a lens to view our knowledge through. A further detachment from ourselves in order to question something. Like how hyperreality works in a modern world where almost everyone with an internet connection has produced a concept of reality on their social media pages, for which others construct a reality and perspective of them. How do we view the world if we aren't sure where the blindfold is? If we don't know what glasses we are wearing.

While the analytical philosophy gives us more practical conclusions for rational thinking, postmodernism gives us tools to fine-tune these conclusions. So instead of conclusions, I think postmodernism is a powerful method in how we conduct rational thinking.

I would argue that postmodernism was a necessary step, in the history of philosophy, to open up thought in an age where philosophers tended to restrict themselves so hard as to be unable to question further beyond already accepted truths. The alternative perspectives, the hypercube of the cube. We can't deny the impact postmodern philosophy has had on both art and rational thinking.

Personally I am very intrigued by the ideas of hyperreality. In a time where people more than ever live within a simulation of their own lives (social media), the ideas within hyperreality are of great importance in order to analyze this landscape.

If people want more info on postmodernism, Stanford has it covered.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/postmodernism/

What makes you think a racist belief is necessary to start it? — Isaac

You mean to say that a belief that invents a categorization of different people and the devaluation of people with dark skin isn't a racist belief? That is how racism in the west was formed and later put into social norm praxis and systems.

Right. Which would support my claim. Still not seeing the psychological effect you think I'm missing. Is there any chance you could just name it, for clarity? — Isaac

Cognitive dissonance. Do you think you can be raised within a system of norms without becoming a product of those norms? What happens when those norms are questioned with evidence? Would you throw everything you learned out the window and conform to the new norm based on evidence? Very few do that, because of the psychological effect known as cognitive dissonance.

I don't see how the existence of cognitive dissonance means that racist beliefs must have initiated systemic racism. — Isaac

I think you misunderstand what I wrote, maybe it was unclarity on my point. But the principle is that cognitive dissonance is what keeps people being and becoming racists within systemic racism that already exists. First, systemic racism forms from a racist belief that gets built into society, then if the public banish racist norms, but the system it built keeps going, people will A) commit racist acts because of that system without being racists and B) Become racists because of the system through cognitive dissonance.

Example: A white kid grows up in a neighborhood where black people have been state segregated 50 years ago and because of that, the socioeconomics have never recovered to a point where the status quo is equal. The system cogs of society keep the status quo going and black people still live in their own neighborhood with less ability to rise above a poverty line and become part of the white community geographical areas and social status. Crime rates are higher within this area and the parents of the white kid teach that kid to avoid that area, avoid black people. That kid grows up and is forming further norms based on how people relate to the systemic racism at play at the roots of social norms. The white kid learns to fear the black community and forms a world view based on those fears.

If this kid, as a grown person, learns that all of these norms are not true, that there are socioeconomic reasons for black people's situation. That there are complex issues that lead to how people behave and interact with each other etc. This person will either dismantle their world view and learn to see past the norms learned when growing up. Or this person will form a cognitive dissonance so that when being confronted with this new perspective, will defend the status quo since it's the only world that person ever lived in.

If they defend their position, they are becoming individual racists outside of the systematic racism at play. They will defend the status quo of that systemic racism and form defensive ideas to why. The further they defend, the stronger their beliefs get. If it continues growing, they might even form white supremacy ideas and believe in things like white genocide, that the critics of the system want to erase white people through mixing the population. Such a conspiracy theory is not far fetched to link to how that kid learned about segregation being normal as a kid. "Don't go into their neighborhood" "don't mix with them".

That's how someone goes from not being a racist, to being a racist through systemic racism in society.

This doesn't in any sense mean that wet grass causes rain. — Isaac

That is a false analogy. Racist beliefs of an individual can influence a group. That group can form rules and laws based on those racist beliefs and laws and rules gorm norms within the larger group. People growing up with those norms will live by them as the natural order, so even if the rules and laws disappear, the norms continue both in direct consequences for the group negatively affected by the racist laws and in worldviews formed out those consequences.

You use an analogy that is false because the relations between rain and grass is not the same as the relation between the individual and society.

Individuals forms society and society form individuals. If you agree to that, you should consider what I wrote. The grass analogy is like saying, Individuals forms society but society doesn't form individuals, which is false by facts of psychological research.

(But... wet grass causes rain, since the water vaporize into clouds that rain down so... even as a false analogy it fails to be false, sorry)

I claimed that racist beliefs were not necessary to either cause or sustain systemic racism. — Isaac

It starts with a racist belief, systemic racism is the cause of that belief being put into the status quo of society. Then when the common status quo narrative of racism is deleted from society as a norm, systemic racism still exists and program people into racist beliefs.

You seemed to suggest that such a position left some acknowledged psychological feature unexplained. I'm asking what that feature is and how such a principle as the one I outlined above leaves it unexplained. — Isaac

I pointed out how systemic racism form from a starting personal belief, then the system itself form new personal beliefs. That it's impossible to separate systemic racism with individual racist beliefs, they inform and sustain each other. While some people act racist through systemic racism without holding such beliefs, many people conform to individual racism through the cognitive dissonance that happens when living within that systemic racism.

Your last post basically outlines a common theory of racist belief propagation and perpetuation, but my point was not about the causes of racist belief, it was about the causes of systemic racism, so I'm not sure how you're relating the two issues. — Isaac

As they are inseparable, you cannot have one without the other. If one person is a racist and that racist belief doesn't spread, no systemic racism will continue, but if you look at history, racism has been a widely accepted norm for hundreds if not thousands of years among groups of people and it is without any logical doubt the foundation for a systemic racism that is so incorporated into society that it's as normal as breathing or eating.

Point being is that you cannot have a large group of individual racists without there forming a systemic racist praxis. And when those racists aren't there, the system of society and status quo they formed will be passed on and form new individuals who learn "how things are" through that system. The more fuzed with this system these people are, the easier it is for them to defend the system because of that cognitive dissonance they form when questioned.

I'm not sure if I understand the question, but if you're asking what I think you're asking, then that would be a question about whether there exist racist belief, not whether they are necessary to explain the existence of systemic racism. — Isaac

How does racism begin? A) With an individual's personal fears or B) with a group/family/division of society that creates a narrative of fear as a couping mechanism or mechanism of having power and control over others?

How does racism still exist? A) Because individuals keep racist beliefs even with evidence to the contrary and children of a new generation form new racist beliefs individually without any influence or B) The created racist narrative is put into a core part of society so fundamental that it becomes part of reality for children of a new generation.

If you answer A on both, that means you believe that our ideas and worldviews form individually and outside of influence from the system and society we are in. If you answer B you believe what has roots in psychological research; that we are formed by society, especially the beliefs we have and that if a core part of society has a racist praxis, even without outspoken racists within them, that system and praxis will through cognitive dissonance form behavior that isn't in conflict with that society's status quo.

It's easier to accept the status quo that doesn't threaten your own worldview and existence. It's harder for those who are content with the status quo to see problems within it than those who are affected negatively by that system. The reason many can't see systemic racism in society is that most of those who position themselves under that opinion isn't negatively affected by the status quo and gain nothing on changing it, maybe even losing something on changing it. So cognitive dissonance kicks in and biases and fallacies take over.

Only freethinkers can at a moment notice rationally be skeptical of their own status quo the moment some other perspective is presented. Most common people fall into cognitive dissonance every time they are forced to think about the status quo in a new perspective and systemic racism is a new perspective for anyone who isn't affected negatively by it. Either they deny it or defend it and in defending it they slowly form into being a racist, whether they understand it or not themselves.

I don't agree that racist beliefs are necessary at any stage, certainly not now. — Isaac

How do you account for the cognitive dissonance that happens as a consequence of living within a racist system? If you think people are detached from the system they exist within, that is going against evidence in psychology. (washington post, wiki)

Poverty as a personal failing instead of a social problem. — Benkei

The liberal and the neoliberal illusion of personal responsibility which in turn argues against determinism. Last I remember, determinism has been the dominant philosophical truth about the world, but somehow it doesn't apply within liberal and neoliberal worldviews, even among liberal and neoliberals who accept determinism philosophically. In my opinion, the liberal hypocrisy at the foundation of the liberal illusion of being a free society for all people.

That difficult topics should have the same amount of demand for high-quality posts as everything else.

Well, I hope we still can discuss difficult topics. Because if this forum will have problems for an open dialogue, just think how bad it will be out there in the real World. — ssu

It's only a problem for people who have biased perspectives and ignore all attempts at examining even their own convictions in an honest way. If this is a philosophy forum, then there has to be some form of demand to keep difficult discussions from ignoring philosophical standards of debate.

Have recommended this numerous times, it seems no one actually cares to watch it. But it does highlight the complexity of spotting modern systemic racism. It's easy for white people to think that in a neoliberal time as now, there's no systemic racism, but that point of view is extremely biased and singular in its perspective.

I also think that neoliberalism is the most effective way to create the illusion of no problems in society. All ideologies exclude some people in society, but liberalism, especially neoliberalism has hidden exclusions. Like "freedom and justice for all, except immigrants". It doesn't matter how the talk is when the walk of neoliberalism doesn't follow.

So within a neoliberal society, it's very easy to build up systemic racism in the most hidden form possible. Because when the neoliberal narrative in public is that everyone is free and everyone has equal justice, it's much harder to see the machine within forming such racism.

"The 13th amendment" on Netflix exposes that machine and how it was formed based on previous obvious systemic racism.

To deny that it exists is to ignore the evidence put forward. And to ignore that evidence is to be ignorant and unable to conduct rational thought. So far, no one who defends the neoliberal narrative has actually made any argument that addresses the facts that exist. They only sidestep everything with zero philosophical scrutinies.

I think that the reason is that we have a status quo of neoliberalism today and people live within this system. Any different perspective on how the world should be is not really an attack on a concept of reality, but the very reality that people live within. It's ingrained in their lives. You have to be a freethinker to actually be able to think outside the system you depend on and live inside. Otherwise, any different perspective from the status quo will feel like an attack on you and not the narratives of the status quo.

This is why I think there are so many who generally are rational people defend the status quo with such low-quality arguments and inability to see the obvious things put before them, sometimes even ignoring to participate in evidence or accept evidence since that would create an emotionally uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Some people are unable to accept a reality beyond the one they have lived within all their lives. It's basically Plato's cave.

The black community comes into the neoliberal cave to tell the white people in there how the world is actually made up... and they just laugh and dismiss everything as nonsense, because they cannot grasp that nature of reality as it is too different from their own.

I doubt it, post-truth populism is a much wider phenomenon than parliament, then politics even. — ChatteringMonkey

Agree, it's a normalized behavior of today. But I think that this is part in solving these issues, not "the" solution.

There's a big difference though, doctors aren't supposed to be elected democratically, and there are more tangible ways to objectively evaluate the skills of a doctor than those of a politician. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, they differ, but the key point of the politician is unbiased praxis. What I'm aiming at is that even though politicians come from different ideologies, they need to rationally argue their proposals in parliament without biases. Right now we have no actual fact-checking and no actual focus on quality of arguments in any parliament. We could argue that media has the role of fact-checking, but since media tends to focus on drama rather than the quality of truth, their role has somewhat diminished as a "reviewer" of power. All while people's apathy towards both politics and truth in media makes room for populism to grow easier.

If we take steps towards increasing the quality of rationality and facts in parliament and politics we could increase the probability of keeping some of that populism out.

All we can do in a political system is to increase the probability of quality, not guarantee it.

It's never totally "free", in the sense that even if you don't have to pay for the education itself, there are costs of living and the opportunity cost of not having an income while you get the education. I live in a country with free education and there is still a class divide in those that get an education and those that do not. Poor people need to earn money to pay for the costs of living. And even aside from the money issues, there would be class differences just because of the values and skills one gets from their parents. — ChatteringMonkey

In Sweden, you get paid to go to higher education. If you need more than the base sum, you take a low-interest loan specifically aimed at education that is paid back through the job you get later on. There are ways to battle the problems with enabling this education for anyone, but since it is a fundamental part of the democracy where it is applied, it might need to have special rules of funding in order to maintain that equality. You should be able to get this education even if you come from absolutely nothing (of course normal education is needed as a foundation, but that is true even for how politics is today).

This might even be an incentive to poor people to get out of poor conditions and wouldn't that be an interesting way to increase diversity in politics and get other voices than the privileged in power? I mean, even if you aren't directly working within parliament, getting the education and a license has a weight towards working in other parts of a party constellation.

An intuitively moral person who could make a difference in a vote but lacks the academic skill to get a degree will be disqualified, while an academically gifted villain will not. — Kenosha Kid

With the education available for all, it would still be better than having none. So the villain would be an uneducated villain as it is now and the intuitively moral person as well. But with the education system, we get an educated villain, but also an intuitively moral person with even better perspective on their moral intuition.

For me, philosophy is probably the least corruptable within academia. The reason being that one primary goal of it is to be skeptical of the knowledge you learn within it. While scientific educations may look unbiased, they can be corrupted. So philosophy is a great way to force people to see past their biases and if the praxis within the job they have educated towards feature a focus on philosophical unbiased rationality, it's even harder to maintain a bias.

I think that if we compare a system without this education and a system with such an education, the probability of higher quality praxis in parliament increases. So, not a utopia, but an improvement over current representative democratic norms.

Sure, I'm not saying it wouldn't matter at all, I'm just saying there might be better ways of achieving the goal. Things like diminishing power of political parties, better accountability through review of representatives, better press reporting through regulation of the media, etc etc... might be more effective. — ChatteringMonkey

No solution is a final solution to all problems. I'm behind those ideas as well, but still thinks a baseline knowledge for the praxis of parliamentary politicians would help get rid of much of the post-truth populism we see today.

It's hard as it is now to get into politics as an average Joe, and then you are only making it harder. — ChatteringMonkey

The average joes can't all become doctors either, even if they want to. I think the idea basically has to do with how we view the work of politicians. I see it as having a tremendous responsibility over the people and therefore I see it as equally important to have a license in order to practice it without harm towards the people.

I may not have all the knits and bolts figured out about the actual education, but I am quite certain of the possible benefits this would have on the praxis of parliament.

I also mentioned that you can as an average joe still be part of the party you want to influence. You just can't work within parliament and vote. But you can be part of the staff of the party and you can get the education any time you want if you have the career of being a politician in mind.

Having great power over the people requires great responsibility (insert Spider-Man quote here)

Licensing through education also typically favours those with the means to finance the education, so there is also the risk you skew political representation in favour of certain classes. — ChatteringMonkey

Not if it's free. That's the reason it's an important part of the system even in countries that doesn't have free education. In a country like Sweden, education is free for all so it's not a problem, but in a country like the US you would need to have this specific education free of charge, maybe with funding for living at a campus in order to make the position available for anyone who wants to pursue the role of politicians.

That is an essential part in order to not skew the democracy into a power class system.

That's basically what i'd propose instead, because it seems to jive better with the principle of democracy and you also avoid some of the risks that come with licenses. — ChatteringMonkey

There are no risks if the education is available for all and at no cost. If someone can't pass the education, they don't have the qualification to do that specific job, but could still work as staff within the party. There are better ways of education than the faulty version the US has, which is a neoliberal nightmare of exclusion.

Overall, I'm not opposed to a general grounding in salient fields as a requisite. But I think a broader meritocracy covers that. You can have morally sound politicians, great economists, great debaters, great diplomats, great lawyers, the works, and that melting point of experience and achievement would far outdo an identikit political education. — Kenosha Kid

The problem with only meritocracy is that it's easier to corrupt with nepotism in systems where education isn't funded by the state and taxes. The education I propose is free for all in order to enable anyone in society to pursue the role of parliament politician.

It could be argued however that a synthesis of the two is the best version. That the ministers coming from more spearheaded education, like the minister of economy having a higher education for that role. However, I think that the foundational education for being a politician has the knowledge needed for better application of parliamentary praxis, while improving the quality of discussions and arguments held within and before actual votes.

Even if experts create the foundation for decisions, they will go through debate and voting as the last instance before being put into national practice. Right now it's like having experts recommending actions taken and those recommendations are given to amateurs to decide upon.

Epistemic Democracy is in its simplest form a request for better parliamentary praxis and educational baseline for all at those power positions. To represent the people shouldn't be to represent stupidity, it should be to represent by interpreting the will of the people through rational thought rather than populism.

How do you decide the requirements for being a politician without being yourself political? You cannot create an impartial course on these topics. — Judaka

What do politicians do? What decisions are they making? You mean to say that we don't know these things? If they debate about new laws, if they discuss ideological differences, if they are solving a migrant crisis, if they are deciding on how to handle a pandemic etc. you mean that they won't be better at it with an education mentioned? If they have a broader spectrum knowledge about these things and the experts in staff have a deeper knowledge in specific topics, they will be much better at actually forming educated proposals.

If you had explained the license differently then my comments would be different. If it was a specialised course that prepared you for the practical elements of the job you're intending to take then it could be compared to medicine. As it stands, it's more of a bachelor of arts. — Judaka

What would you have in an education that aims to give a broad spectrum overview of subjects a politician needs to handle and discuss as well as the necessary knowledge in deductive and inductive arguments for dialectic debates? Which topics should be included in such an education that aims to get you a political license?

I've repeatedly said that I think it will make absolutely no improvement on the status quo. When it was just facts, I was okay with it, now it's also biases and fallacies and I think it's too dangerous. — Judaka

It's been about that since the beginning argument. Did you read my OP in detail?
You have repeatedly said this, but I've yet to hear why it wouldn't change how things are today? Politicians today debate with no respect to making good rational arguments and it clogs the democratic system with populistic nonsense. How would a fact-checker who conducts the debates towards better quality arguments from each side, not be an improvement, I'd like to hear the why and why it's dangerous. You only say that, but not in what way?

I certainly don't trust anyone to moderate my posts, the moderators on this forum are legit the worst posters here. — Judaka

So your counter-argument is based on personal experience of the mods of this forum? That is not a valid counter-argument.

The idea is asinine and that's my position, now I can assume the role of fact-checker and do not respond to my criticism, just go back and rewrite your argument, I will let you know if it's logical or not and if it isn't then you can rewrite it again. You didn't lose this debate but I've determined that your position is illogical therefore you must rewrite it so we can get to the truth beyond your biases and fallacies. — Judaka

I think you have made up an idea about the fact-checker based on your own experiences with mods on this forum and probably people elsewhere, but that is not any explanation to why such a role in parliament would be dangerous. To spot biases and fallacies, to demand correct facts in the arguments is about getting rid of populistic bullshit and demagogical practices.

If you ever watched the debates in the British parliament you would understand what I'm getting at here.

You need to make a proper counter-argument for why such a role would be dangerous, not your own personal experience, that has no value for me and this theory.

I don't think you fully understood the ramifications of what I'm saying. It's not the representatives who decide. Or they decide only 'technically', the decisions are determined beforehand. So what gets decided beforehand determines the quality of the votes, not the parliamentary proces. — ChatteringMonkey

It might be the case that lobbyist and politics behind the curtains make some of the representatives decide before being in parliament pressing the buttons, but it's still happening there and there are many cases where party members go against their own members if they think their own party has it wrong. The debates taking place in parliament is there in order to discuss proposals, to recruit votes within the parliament. So if those debates had a much higher level of quality, the expert input from the staff of each party can be debated at a higher level of quality.

Also, remember that representative democracise in the world can be very different from each other. US, British, Nordic democracies differ very much from each other and that might be part of the confusion when talking about epistemic democracy.

if they would punish representatives electorally for poor rethoric. And maybe you could accomplish that by educating or informing the people... not necessarily the politicians. — ChatteringMonkey

I still think that raising the bar for debate quality and having a fact-checker present who can stop politicians with bad arguments, demanding them to improve them before continuing, would lead to that and be easier to accomplish than educating the entire people.

The basic question I'm asking is why politicians who can make decisions of life and death for the people, aren't demanded to have a license, just like any other job with such risks? The first thing to counter-argue would be to ask why not having such licenses is better than having them.

But that's not the differentiation I made. I'm on board with elected officials being educated, and I'm on board with philosophy forming part of that (indeed everyone's) education. But even in debate, I'd still prefer the woman arguing economic policy to understand economics first and foremost. A two-two in philosophy just doesn't cut it. — Kenosha Kid

I think ChatteringMonkey put this in perspective when arguing that politicians have a staff made up of experts and that many decisions are made outside of the actual parliamental debates. So you don't have to be a spearheaded expert in economy for putting forth an economy proposal. However, if everyone is educated to be politicians you have a baseline understanding of the proposal itself. You might even have further combined knowledge of the consequences of the proposal and therefore be able to conduct a rational debate about it.

What I mean is that philosophical methods of debating are more focused on rational balanced facts than just convincing rhetoric. We don't lose experts by this, we add expertise in one link of the democratic chain.

With that said, maybe additional education is needed for the role of ministers? You can still be part of the parliament without being a minister of something. But I think because the pure experts in different fields are behind the scenes, it's not really needed.

It is your belief that there's a simple equation: a philosophy graduate = a better political thinker. I don't even think this is true. Some philosophy graduates will be superior thinkers. But some will be solipsists, a great many are theologians, some deny the material world, some deny causality, some will argue for an ethics of self-advancement. I don't want any of those people running the country. — Kenosha Kid

Philosophy is part of the education I listed. It's also focused on philosophical methods of dialectics and moral philosophy surrounding the job as a politician. What I mean is that the education isn't just normal philosophy for a philosophy degree, it's an education for a political license, it's for that purpose specifically. So the philosophy taught is focused primarily on debate methods and dialectics, moral philosophy and justice, epistemology and through that skeptical approaches. Metaphysics, for example, is just part of the introductory, it's not the focus since the education is aimed at a specific philosophical practice.

A politician who studies through this education will learn history, economy, political philosophy, moral philosophy, epistemology, leadership, psychology and philosophical dialectic methods that will be used in parliament. The philosophy part is primarily aimed at how to discuss things in society before making decisions, helping the rational thought and debates about it. In essence, it will force each political party to be able to argue rationally for their ideology in a way that makes voting more clear in its consequences.

I'd actually make a stronger argument for physics being a better option: it at least grounds you in some understanding of reality; physicists are overwhelmingly atheists which will guarantee a separation of church and state; they have an average IQ well above politicians; they tend not to be partisan (at least here); they are equipped with the mathematical knowledge to understand economic theory; they are used to modelling complex systems like a society; they're used to thinking big picture (cosmology) so are unlikely to be vulnerable to malicious lobbies; they also understand that the smallest of things are important. Okay, their empathy skills are low, but there's the argument that you actually need your leaders to be a little psychopathic. Overall, physics is clearly the superior choice of universal political education... according to a physicist! — Kenosha Kid

Philosophy demands rational thinking with strong premises. It also has a focus on things that politicians are always dealing with such as justice, morality, ideology, making hard decisions with life/death consequences.

I think you view philosophy in another way than I do within the context of epistemic democracy. I focus on the practice of dialectical scrutiny, the focus on strong premised, unbiased arguments together with an understanding of moral theories, deeper ideological understanding as well as how the praxis of philosophical debate erases all populistic behaviors in parliament.

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. — ChatteringMonkey

If you change the praxis of debate, if you demand unbiased arguments without fallacies and factual errors, there's no need for mud throws. You can argue for the people who voted on you, but in a much higher quality than just populistic rants.

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. — ChatteringMonkey

That won't go away. I'm just proposing to increase the quality of politicians in parliament. If they aren't experts in an area, they need to be experts on how to handle information and debate a topic. It's a different field of expertise to be a politician, that right now in our current system we have no such demand for expertise. Epistemic democracy force politicians to not just be representatives, but experts in being representatives. That's the key difference.

and what happens then in parliament is not a matter of dialectics anymore, but of rethorics. — ChatteringMonkey

Which is the change to parliament I also propose here. The debates taking place is there to reach a voting conclusion. So increasing their quality would increase the quality of those votes.

Essentially I want to move away from experts who give their expertise to amateurs who then debate and decide. I want to have experts who give expertise to dialectic experts who decide closer to facts than popularity.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The argument I'm having with ssu (on my end at least) is regarding the historical failure of representative politics — fdrake

I didn't read this before writing my other argument for improving representative democracy but check that out if you're interested.

so show me where to look and what I should be looking for, so that I can see it too. — Harry Hindu

I have, we all have.

The fact that police shoot unarmed whites indicates that there are other possible reasons that police shoot unarmed suspects, other than racism. — Harry Hindu

The statistics of the higher likelihood of black people being killed over white people shows that there is systemic racism in play. If that is because crime rates are higher in black communities, that is not counter to that conclusion, but supporting the existence of systemic racism, since being black is not the reason for higher crime rates.

Why does it always have to be racism when it's a white vs black? — Harry Hindu

Can you just watch "The 13th Amendment" documentary and return here please. See that and then return with some counter-argument to it. It perfectly describes the underlying systemic racism at play in US society.

It's important to be skeptical, but if you don't even attempt to take part in the perspective that argues there is systemic racism in play and concludes there to not be enough evidence, you are just ignorant. You've been provided with enough.

Re-read my previous post. I edited it as you were replying. — Harry Hindu

Re-read the arguments (quoted as a reminder) about systemic racism before asking people to re-read yours.

Statistics can inform rational arguments, but you don't provide rational arguments in favor of the conclusion that there's no systemic racism. You only make statistical claims as if they were rational conclusions. That's a fallacy.

What are you talking about? I was asking what percentages of cops are racist. Is that not asking for observable facts — Harry Hindu

No, because such statistics is impossible to verify and quantify. We can use statistics of acts, we can look at laws and legislations, we can look at socio-economic issues, history, we can look at the prison system (13th amendment on Netflix) etc. in order to spot systemic racism.

like how police treat blacks vs some other group and that the causes are actually racist and not something else, like blacks committing crimes at a higher rate than other groups? — Harry Hindu

It doesn't matter if there's something else, that's the point about systemic racism. It's integrated in the system to such a degree that a single person can individually be non-racist but enforce a racist act as an agent of the state.

No, that is what you are doing. — Harry Hindu

So you didn't ignore the entire post and just answered on the first part, essentially just red herring everything past it? Need a reminder?

How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. Give me an exact number or at least a percentage. What is it?
— Harry Hindu

That is a fallacious statistical request. You should look at the statistics of how cops act towards black people.

You keep making these accusations that blacks are legitimately scared of whites, but forget that far more blacks die at the hands of other blacks, and they are legitimately scared at their own race.
— Harry Hindu

They are scared of state police violence. They aren't scared of white or black people, they are scared about being killed based solely on the color of their skin by the violence monopoly of the state. In the worst neighborhoods, you could fend off violence with defensive violence, but you are not allowed to defend against the violence of the state. That's why no one can step in and save someone like George as he is slowly dying under the police officer's knee. If that had been done by someone else in the street, the people would have been able to save him.
"Black people were 24% of those killed despite being only 13% of the population."
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/

If you want to point the statistics that blacks are killed by cops and a higher percentage relative to their population, then you should also acknowledge that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.
— Harry Hindu

The differences in crime rates in terms of race is not an excuse for police killings. It's also ignoring the reasons for high crime rates within those communities. You seem to think that police violence is a detached form of systemic racism from the rest of society, but the very nature of systemic racism is that it exists throughout society. It's the systemic racism over the course of decades or hundreds of years that keep the segregation going, even though direct racist laws were abandoned decades ago.

You are arguing out of a notion of free will, when the deterministic nature of society is a proven fact. You cannot act or be acted upon in society without a deterministic causality link throughout history.

If the wealth built up in slavery is distributed among a majority of white people; if places like Tulsa, the "black wall street" gets destroyed, people killed in a massacre and their wealth stolen into the possession of white people: if housing laws segregated black people into parts of cities where the lack of wealth never increase the quality of life and no industries want to have shops... and so on, you will have a society that is built upon systemic racism since the system itself is governing how people "should" act within it.

A police officer is able to not be racist, but still enforce a racist practice of handling the job, because of the underlying systems.

To just claim that because crime is higher in black communities and because of that it's more common that black people get killed and that this is somehow a proof of there not being any systemic racism... is an extremely fallacious argument that ignores so many complex aspects of what systemic racism is about.

Your writing reflects a lot of what other people write, the surface level analysis of this issue. But in here, on this forum, I think there should be a demand for much better scrutiny of these questions than how the surface level Facebook-debates usually goes.

So first, are you a determinist or believer of free will? Do you think society acts separately from history and that history has no effect on the present events? Do you think that laws and regulations are the only forms of guidelines on which society behaves? Do you think that socioeconomic factors over long spans of time affect the conditions in which society acts and exists?

I see no such dive into these issues, only attempts at proving a point with biases and fallacious ideas. I think the discussion should get back into philosophical praxis, instead of these surface-level outbursts. — Christoffer

So, can you please conduct philosophical praxis or are you unable to do so?

But you are still just red herring the entire thing. You do not involve yourself with the arguments and conduct proper philosophical praxis to it. That is my point here. You are just blasting a biased opinion and ignore everything that doesn't fit that narrative.

Arguments have already been written down, if you ignore them, you haven't proven anything or given any conclusion to the contrary.

. If percentages are psuedo-statistics, then why did you provide a link with percentages? — Harry Hindu

What are you talking about? I said that statistics that can be used are those that are quantifiable and verifiable.

What is the difference between asking what percentage of cops are racist and asking what the statistics are of cops being racist? Stop trying to avoid the question. If you, or someone else has provided the statistics/percentage, then post a link. It is very difficult to find valid information in this thread, as it is mostly trolling and racist rants against whites and cops. — Harry Hindu

Because that is not real statistics, it is speculative statistics that can never be achieved, hence pseudo-statistics. Statistics of police killings on the other hand is quantifiable and verifiable.
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
It also ignores everything about what systemic racism is, which is not about which cops are racists, but a deeper issue.

And "avoiding the question" after you avoid to tackle a long post of arguments is quite an ironic statement point.

and he did not die while he was in a neck hold. — ernestm

He lost consciousness because of the knee and later died. Or do you mean that if someone is shot and then they die later at the hospital because of an infection in the gun wound, the shooter isn't liable for killing that person?

He might have died at exactly the same time, and been out of breath at exactly the same time, even if he had not been in a neck hold. — ernestm

This is grasping at straws. It's like saying that if someone dies of a heart attack after being shot, the shooting had nothing to do with it. How can you rule out that the acts of the police weren't a catalyst for his medical condition? The act of putting the knee is banned by several police forces specifically because it can be lethal.

https://en.as.com/en/2020/06/06/other_sports/1591442963_890018.html

To argue that he "might have dropped dead anyway" and it's a coincidence that he died right there and then is extremely weak as an argument. You could free any manslaughter case based on this reasoning.

As I said, the other stuff is ancillary, but when courts are on such public display as this one will be, they will not want the fact that murder can't be proven be the first bad fact about Floyd that the public has to confront. — ernestm

You are making a bad argument against their guilt and conclude that "it will only be public pressure that would judge the cops guilty." You have false premises to back up a speculative conclusion that would be speculative even if the premises were true.

Where's your philosophical scrutiny?

Of the people who said they'd shoot a child, all of them said they were entitled to do so, so it was the right thing to do — ernestm

Yes, a perfect analogy of the reasoning behind systemic racism. If the system allows something to be divided out of race and there's nothing that guides morality outside the regulations, the people of power in that system can act as racists without even knowing it. Just like people in Nazi-Germany were conditioned to accept violence against jews.

If there's a system that entitles people to act in a certain way, it will normalize behavior through cognitive dissonance.

Now it seems to me people have already decided they are entitled to judge policeman, usually based on 10 seconds of videotape, as racist murderers. — ernestm

Systemic racism is more than a 10-second videotape, and there are more cases than just those 10 seconds of videotape. You also use an example that could be an analogy for systemic racism, in order to argue that people who stand up against police violence are the "entitled" ones who can't be reasoned with... do you see how ironic and ill-conceived that kind of argument is?

I would recommend you to view "The 13th amendment" on netflix in order to see the broader perspective in this issue. It's very good at showing that side of the argument.

Its the same as what people say when they say obviously police should be disbanded. When I say that would cause alot more deaths and crime, they say crime and murder would not go up because they say so. — ernestm

That is a strawman argument. They aren't saying this, they are saying that the police has more funding combined than all organizations that work to improve life in areas where crime rises due to socioeconomic issues. If you put money into building better lives for people, crime will go down. Crime doesn't happen in a vacuum, that's an illusion often perpetrated by right-wing politics to justify police brutality. And thinking crime happens in a vacuum is also a low-quality argument in terms of philosophy.

the law says, Floyd could have died anyway — ernestm

The law doesn't say that.

Floyd--of course he could be on the verge of death when he was arrested as a result of his own behavior, but according to current opinion, that no longer matters. — ernestm

The acts of the police is still wrong. You cannot argue against that with his medical condition and a speculative idea that he "would have died anyway". There's no legal validity to that argument and there's nothing that change the fact that the police acted out wrongfully. Here's a quote from the earlier link:

In Minneapolis, law enforcement officers were permitted to employ two types of neck hold (carotid neck restraints) on a potential suspect, according to the department’s Policy and Procedure manual, but only officers who have received specific training in how to correctly carry them out are permitted to do so.

However, former police officer and co-founder of the Police Policy Studies Council Tom Aveni, who has been involved in training law enforcement officers since 1983, told USA Today: "I have not seen anyone teach the use of a knee to the neck.”

So because it's not taught and because the police officer used a chokehold not sanctioned and because the result is someone losing consciousness and then dying, it has nothing to do with public pressure if the police officers are found guilty.

There is enough evidence to argue them guilty. Previous criminal history is irrelevant and a speculative conclusion that Floyd would have died "anyway" is not conclusive enough to warrant a dismissal of guilt.

You have to first prove that "he would have died anyway" before using such a conclusion for dismissal of the police officer's guilt in the matter.