Can a P-zombie make choices? If it is acting the same as a normal human, it needs to make choices, as humans make choices all the time even based on reactions to events and variations on reactions to events over time. We form choices based on our internal processing of our experience, not by the experience itself. If someone struck us, we react, but react differently based on our current mental state that is in turn based on us having processed different experiences.

So, I would say that P-zombies aren't possible if simulating a human is the primary function, since a simulation that reacts in the exact same way all the time, regardless of time, is not indistinguishable from a human. In order to perfectly mimic a human, it needs to adapt and process experience, which in turn requires an internal mental state that goes against the concept of a P-zombie.

So, the requirement of a P-zombie to exist is the thing that makes a P-zombie not possible to exist or it becomes just another human, and in being that, it is not a P-zombie, just another human. A P-zombie cannot act as a human without the thing that informs our acts. A person cannot act or even simulate complex actions without having a consciousness that processes the reasons for an act.

Case point, does Ava in Ex Machina have consciousness? Without the ability to internally adapt and change behavior, she would be stuck in a feedback loop of choices that are easily predictable, thus not act like a human.

So how can we scientifically explain consciouness? — alphahimself

Yes, but not yet.

1. What is ultimate reality to you? God? Matter? Something else?

2. Is truth absolute or relative? Are at least some truths absolute? Where do these come from?

3. Are moral values absolute or relative? Are at least some moral values absolute? If so, where do these absolute moral values come from?

4. How would you answer the three great philosophical questions of life: Where did we come from? Why are we here? and Where are we going? — jjstet

1. Reality bound by physics and its rules - With me experiencing it through my limited senses and brain processing it. Everything else is outside of our reality and can't be observed or measured from us or methods of us.

2. Truth is absolute if the facts of that truth are not filtered through opinions. How we form truths is based on language and the collectively decided meaning of that language to mean the same to all involved with stating that truth.

3. Relative. Humans have formed a narrative by which we live by. Nothing of our emotional experiences of reality can be formed as absolute truths, so no truths of moral can be formed. If going by the psychology of ourselves, the inductive conclusion can be formed that we have some basic moral values of well-being that are very common in every culture and place in time, but exceptions exist that go against it. So we can only form moral values as being high in probability, meaning, we can find moral values that guide us through that they are the most common in people based on our emotional nature. Most don't kill because most don't like killing others - a common moral value that's guided by our actual experience. Only through narratives in culture can the act of killing start to go against the initial state of not liking it.

So the only absolutes we can find are themselves relative but can be found through probability. But these basic ones cannot form answers to complex moral questions, where things get so relative that we cannot use just probability to find answers.

4. We are the product of universal extreme randomness forming complexity. Just like the chaos of atoms in a cloud can form the shape of a cat, it is indeed chaos in the right structure that forms something we experience as something more. As humans are pattern-seeking animals, we must act against our pattern-seeking instincts to see reality for what it is; entropic chaos that enables a chance at complexity.

We are not here for anything, we simply just are. Don't fall into the pattern-seeking trap creating narratives that aren't there.

We are going into the future and speculations are fiction more or less based in educated predictions. A personal hope is that we expand into the universe and become a truly universal civilization or entity. But statistics point to oblivion before any of that has come to pass, either by self-destruction or losing all attributes of being human, becoming something else, either through evolution or self-evolutionary augmentation and manipulation.

I'm being more general in the matter. Historically, the west have gotten more free of government oppression by religion, but only due to capitalist interests dominating power rather than specific individuals using religion. While the west has people using capitalism to gain power, the middle-east has kept using religion.

So, we are all oppressed in some way, some more than others, we just don't see western oppressive behaviors clearly since we live in the system and might even be part of that system. The level of suffering must also be balanced to the way it is portrayed in media and the common narrative. It's hard to know the level of oppression if the narrative is never truly objective, but subjective in media and enforced by echo chambers in the public.

Many in the middle-east find themselves oppressed more by western society invading through culture than their own government and religion does.

So how do we balance perspectives and narratives to form a truly objective overview of oppression in the world? Singular examples of oppression like Kenosha Kid mentioned are real, but singular, they form a singular perspective. So if someone form examples from western society of oppression, we get another singular perspective.

The idea I proposed is to back up and view oppression as a concept first, before talking specifics of how different nations, religions, and cultures act upon their own people.

There are no difference between them other than what people attribute to them by being outside viewers. Not able to separate different types of observations we attribute oppression to one and choice to the other. While the truth is that both are indoctrinated in faith and oppressed by the doctrines of society. The same as people being against Minaret songs but ok with church bells. People in western society are fine with what they are used to and attribute less oppression to what's existed for long in our culture, while calling other cultures oppressed based on being outsiders observing them.

Truth is, oppression is not felt by Muslims in the same way as we think they "should" and we are blind to the invisible oppression we enforce within our own cultural norms. Many don't get annoyed by church bells and nuns, but would get annoyed by Minaret songs and Niqabs. Many don't see how society and Christian religion indoctrinate people into these positions, but clearly see how Muslim nations oppress and indoctrinate their people. It's easy to see systems from the outside than spot the systems we live in.

The many conflicts and problems we spot in Muslim nations almost always have more to do with people in power using religion to oppress and control. The problems are always means of power, not the religion itself. Religion is a powerful tool to control people far more effectively than anything else.

So the more interesting question is; If we remove systems of power, what would become of religion? How does practice, rituals and ways of living look if religion as a means of power is changed to being a religion with pure choice. Meaning, no one force religion on anyone, not their children, not a stranger, not the people.

Before saying these people have a "choice" or define the differences between the two by a scale of "feeling" oppressed, we must break down how people are formed into making either a choice to be, indoctrinated or forced to be something.

All of us are products of a deterministic society, nature and nurture where even nature is formed by the nurture of past people. So to define differences we need to detach ourselves from the shackles of this determinism in order to purely objectively observe the nature of being and understand that there are no differences between the two, it's only a narrative we've formed to be comfortable in existence.

I still wouldn’t try to change a law if it was wrong, I don’t have time to change the world it’s just not worth the time. I suppose I still have trust in my society, maybe if I lived somewhere where the laws were making my life miserable — Maya

But we can't create an empathic morality theory based on the status quo of one country. You also have to keep in mind that laws change all the time, nothing of that is static. If a government all of a sudden change laws into something that is not good for the people, that would need to be overthrown by the people. Otherwise, you are advocating for a totalitarian regime in which you would follow any leader who put into play any type of law.

You need a viewpoint on morality that is forming justice and laws, not that is coming out of it. That's the whole purpose of ethics; how we form society based on a set of philosophical moral guidelines.

You just weigh it, pros and cons of a decision. I personally wouldn’t break the law because I’d feel so bad of the consequences, the punishment of society, like society’s being mean to you, would be too much to bear. — Maya

What if there were laws that needed to be broken to expose a broken system? How does one live in a society that, for example, have totalitarian laws and keep empathic morality? Like the recent laws in China which can put people in prison for life just for speaking out against oppressive politics. Breaking that law would be considered fine by most people. But if you are raised in that society, you and others around you might view those laws and justice as the status quo. Therefore you accept that breaking a law that forbids something most other people in the world would consider a human right, would make you feel bad.

So how do you combine empathic morality with a justice system that doesn't equal to true empathic values and human rights? If breaking the law is a good thing, but makes you feel bad, how does that combine with your ability to value pros and cons of that choice?

The right thing to do is what makes us feel good, without breaking the law — Maya

You advocate for morality out of empathy. This requires however that the laws and justice is created out of empathic ideals as well, otherwise, empathic morality will end up in conflict with laws and justice.

That is what is questioned by the Del Santo article. — Banno

Problem is that it's inaccessible to non-members. But I see your point. The abstract points to an attempt at solving the bridging problem.

But I was mainly objecting to the conclusion you made "The notion that the universe is determined fails."
Which only makes sense if there was a high probability of large consequences of random operation, which doesn't really exist in our reality. We only conclude something like that based on what we yet cannot measure or do with physics. So at best it's a low probability conclusion that it fails, but more likely that we can measure the existence of it, but not yet understand it.

Sure. The present conversation is not about quantum randomness. It's about indeterminacy in classical physics. — Banno

Maybe I fail to see how they are not connected? Randomness in causality physics only exists when we have a lack of ability to measure all possible parameters. The only randomness that exist which breaks determinism is at a quantum level, a level that is incompatible with reality and therefore can't be counted as part of it, just like we don't count the breakdown of spacetime in a black hole as part of our reality, but instead exist outside it.

So if our reality is measured with classical physics, determinism is not broken. If we lack the ability to spot errors, that doesn't mean determinism breaks, only that our tools did.

In context, I mean that quantum randomness doesn't affect classical physics since classical physics deals with large determined sizes. Quantum randomness boils down to predictability as soon as the scale of the system is above that of scales required for random operation. I.e we have a random system that defines the properties of an object and those properties don't change since the probability of them being broken is so low it could be considered infinitely improbable. Classical physics can't define this randomness since classical physics breaks down at those scales, but that doesn't mean they can't measure deterministic outcomes if the ability to measure is powerful enough, since classical physics calculate the actual reality of our universe. Quantum randomness is outside of this reality since it exists on a scale where our reality does not work and cannot work because of it.

It's the same as with black holes. Spacetime breaks down within it and while we can measure, calculate, and speculate about the reality within a black hole, it is impossible to define it with measurements of our reality. Inside a black hole, there's unreality. The same goes for quantum randomness, it is outside reality. Both the black hole and quantum randomness affect reality, but they both become deterministic when "entering" our reality in the form of causal events.

But of course no one could determine the final resting place of the ball. Even the smallest error in the initial positions will be magnified until it throws out the calculations. — Banno

How is this premise concluded with the conclusion below?

The notion that the universe is determined fails. — Banno

Just because we cannot measure all parameters necessary for predicting the future, doesn't mean that all parameters aren't there to determine the outcome.

We can argue for quantum randomness affecting the larger scaled world, but it is probabilistic and the probable outcomes become infinitely more deterministic as soon as we leave a planck scale. Saying that something is random when we don't have enough ability to calculate all parameters doesn't mean it is random.

And if we include ourselves into the equation, we are far too big in scale to be free of deterministic randomness.

Take the idea of a quantum dice. The illusion we have is that if we make choices based on this, we are neither free nor determined, but actually acting out of randomness. However, this is also an illusion since the quantum randomness gets determined by measuring it. So surrounding parameters still determine the outcome, combined with the apparent choice of throwing the dice and making choices based on an outcome.

The likely truth of the universe is that it's based on probability on a scale so small that the order created out of it becomes deterministic.

I.e the universe as perceived and measurable for definitions on how it works becomes deterministic and anything outside of that is neither perceivable nor measurable. It becomes rather a reality vs unreality. To describe our universe is to describe it with and through reality. Any attempt to describe it through unreality fails to be relevant as it's not part of reality both in perception and in terms of ability to be measured.

What are we then talking about when talking about quantum randomness if we can't talk about it, perceive or measure it without destroying it into a deterministic reality? Unreality is unable to be compatible with reality, we cannot define it and it cannot define reality. Therefore quantum randomness can be concluded to exist through math, but it cannot be part of reality as it's not a component of what makes up the universe, it's outside of it.

You say you want proof but I'm not sure that exists, it's a nearly impossible thing to prove. We don't record what your political positions were before and after taking a course at a university. We can only note that universities are not apolitical. — Judaka

So, how is your objection then valid? The example of communism ignores everything else that went on with society, but pretty much blames the rise of it on universities' lack of neutrality. So you first don't have a clear example and no evidence of there even being ideological shifts between first and last year of candidates.

So how is this objection really of quality value?

You ask "what evidence do you have that it can produce ideological shifts" but within communism you have clear examples of world-famous communist leaders who picked up their ideological leanings at university. — Judaka

Ignoring everything else that went down during these times, communism or rather marxism was a radical theory at the time and it was applied to something that didn't even match up with what Marx and Engels talked about. All these people tried to force marxism into system when Marx and Engels proposed them to be a consequence of capitalism. The theories were popular because they were part of the discourse, not some ideological indoctrination thing happening outside of the lecture halls as you put this forward.

So how is these historical events evidence for how universities function today and in what way do it even remotely affect the idea of politician education and license? The link is very thin here and I'm asking for a little better clarification of what the actual consequences would be for the licensed politicians in the end.

if you forced future leaders to go to universities which debate political theories such as communism then it increases the likelihood of them being influenced by those theories. — Judaka

So, if you have a balanced education that neutrally goes through capitalism and marxism there's a risk that some of them find marxism intriguing?

Do you realize what you are actually saying here? That it's better that we keep people in the dark about political theories because if people learn about all of that they might find some ideas that are considered taboo in this neoliberal world we currently live in to be more interesting than the status quo. Seriously?

Bring all knowledge, all theories and facts into light, discuss them critically and if that leads to some educated people finding something more aligned with themselves than what they believed before that knowledge, that is not the kind of indoctrination you are talking about and that is nothing but anti-intellectualism out of fearmongering the left and marxism.

It is not the nail in the coffin for your suggestions and honestly I am not really trying to prove anything. — Judaka

The nail in the coffin is that when people learn knowledge about political theories they might learn marxism and therefore it leads to communist takeover? You object by specifically point out that people might learn some, in your opinion, "bad knowledge" that could change how they view the world after education.

Knowledge is knowledge. I could argue that knowledge is always better than no knowledge.

p1 Broad knowledge always leads to more informed conclusions.
p2 Informed conclusions always lead to a higher probability of positive outcomes than uninformed ones.

Therefore, broad knowledge is always better than no knowledge when making conclusions and taking decisions.

How does that fit with the comparison of politicians today and the ones in epistemic democracy? Politicians today can be uneducated and have very little knowledge while practicing parliamentary actions. How is that better than them also having a politician education as a foundation? Because they risk learning something in university that they might like? And because of that risk, it's the nail in coffin of the idea of education for politicians?

How about the current practice of representative democracy? Where we can have neo-nazis dressed in suits taking power because they were indoctrinated into that by the alt-right and there are nothing to prevent uneducated ideas to infiltrate parliament? How is the risk of influence as it is now better than how it would be if we risk getting influenced by having more and broader knowledge of political ideas, ideologies and theories?

You must explain why learning more about political theory and ideologies risks indoctrinating into bad politics while at the same time point out how the current system is better keeping bad politics out of power when the logic of knowledge points to the contrary?

Otherwise, the only thing I can see you making an argument for is that people shouldn't learn stuff about political theories because that can lead to them liking something else than they previously did.

How is that logical as an objection against epistemic democracy in any way? It's more of an argument for anti-intellectualism.

Really, that's my "line of logic"? But I never said anything like that. Isn't that what we call a strawman? — Judaka

Tu quoquo. You explained your logic behind it, but it still doesn't hold up. Previously I had to guess, that is not equal to a strawman.

It's an outrageous interpretation of my argument. I'm not fearmongering communism and I even went out of my way to specify as such. — Judaka

But they might learn about communism in their education and therefore bad politicians? Circling back to your nail in the coffin. So I take back my guess about your conclusion, because it's not fearmongering the left, it's fearmongering the idea of education as education can lead to knowledge that is considered "bad".

There is no "bad knowledge", there's only knowledge. "Bad knowledge" is essentially biased ideas and biased ideas are a feature much closer to the uneducated than the educated. Epistemic democracy is much lower in risking bad politics entering parliament than the opposite, just through logic alone.

You choose instead to put words in my mouth and interpret my arguments in ways that undermine them, so I will not respond to whatever you may comment further. — Judaka

No, I'm scrutinizing your objections in order to see if there's any valid criticism that has any sound foundation, but so far I haven't remotely been convinced by the reasoning you give here. That's what philosophy is. You can't just say an opinion that is ill-supported with fallacious arguments about how people might learn "too much" during their education and risk learning stuff like communism and therefore conclude that epistemic democracy is bad or worse than the status quo. It's surface-level opinion in the same class as the infamous Michael Gove quote that the people have "had enough of experts".

I've had enough of demagogues in politics.

You bring up fallacy arguments so much lol. Most of your responses are really just you theorising about the ways in which you think my arguments might go without actually finding that out first. — Judaka

That's why I ask for clarification since you don't give one, all I have is the outlines of your objections.

Was this my argument? That fact is only important to you, why should I care? — Judaka

You connect political imbalance within universities to form a conclusion that it would create biased politicians. If that is not the case, what is your point with universities' political imbalance? Clarify

It's not even just about the "knowledge taught", even if the classes were totally apolitical. When you say political candidates must spend 3-6 years at a university and universities aren't apolitical places, it has an impact on the candidates. — Judaka

And we still have educated people on all sides of politics, what evidence do you have that education at universities produces a shift in political ideology? How can you differentiate that to normal ideological shifts in society at the same time? That university has an impact on candidates outside of the education itself is true because it's true throughout the life of a person to change according to the environment. But you are very specific about what type of change we are talking about so you need to prove that with much better scrutiny.

That people change is not the same as change in a way negative to one's initial ideology. And even if someone changes ideologically, how do you know that is because of the university outside of education and not out of the reason more knowledge puts more perspective on political questions? If the latter, that is a good outcome for the individual. Having more perspective gives better insight in the good and bad of each ideological position you can be in.

The spread of communism and its relationship with universities is extensive, that's half of the story of the 20th-century spread of communism. Look at Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Lenin and many others. The point here isn't to say "US will become communist if political licence" but that you cannot treat universities as being apolitical. — Judaka

How is this in any way linked to what I'm proposing? How is this not a Reductio ad absurdum? Or guilt by association through the fact that they had universities and so do we, therefore extreme consequence?

This is in no way evidence for negative consequences of a politician education and license. Why would this be in any difference to how doctors go through medical education? Would that result in them being politically biased towards health care and practice? What about lawyers and law school? There are plenty of areas of expertise that require neutrality.

This objection just sounds like fearing ideological indoctrination rather than a sound critique of the required education to practice parliamentary duties. You have to prove actual consequences outside of historical accounts that really has little to do with solely university reasons alone for their rise.

The irony here is that it seems your argument has more ideological reasons than rational ones. The example of the rise of communism in universities, without nuance to the fact that there was more happening in society than just what happened in those universities, and the fact that your entire line of logic here is: [The old rise of communism was because communism in universities] > [Universities are not good for learning]

What if the education was part of the state instead and separated from any faculty or candidates of current universities and that these universities focus entirely on the education of politicians? With clear standards for education guidelines and review of political neutrality. Would that be better? Since I'm proposing a fundamental change in democratic practice it could easily be a part of that change.

STRAW MAN? I've written like 2k words on your thread, you know what I think about the individual components which have all been addressed. I haven't made any slippery slope arguments. — Judaka

Still, you sum up my premise about education to be bad because it produces indoctrinated politicians because communism started in universities. I ask for clear evidence for any indoctrinated ideologies as consequences in people who went to universities, but all you do is point to the rise of communism as if that proves against the need for education.

Writing 2k words that repeat the same objections without deeper clarifications and inclusion of futher points mean little if it doesn't clearly prove my points wrong here. Assumptions and fearmongering communism are not valid support of the objections you've made. That is why this keeps going.

I am done, please stop replying to me. — Judaka

You only have the choice of not continuing the discussion, not that your objections are the final words of a discussion.

Universities don't try to ensure equal representation in their courses or of their lecturers in political persuasions, why wouldn't there be an imbalance? Universities have always been involved in politics and university students have always been interested in politics. Especially in the arts where people are encouraged to think about these kinds of ideas. I don't want to respond to your obsession with fallacies that have nothing to do with what I said. — Judaka

So in what way is the current system better than what I propose? In what way do you mean that their education, in terms of primarily economics and philosophy would lead to political biases? What kind of biases are you talking about here? Out of the proposed risk of universities having imbalanced representation, how can you conclude the amount at which current universities have imbalanced representation and to which amount it changes the outcome of their education, and specifically the outcome within the areas of education I proposed?

So far you seem to argue: "some universities have an imbalance in political positions, therefore politician education distorts the neutrality of parliament."
Disregarding the fact that people don't get a politician license after learning a political ideology, but instead, already have a foundational ideology. The education isn't there to reprogram and even if there was a political imbalance at the university, that doesn't change the education taught in these areas of knowledge. Students can today absolutely call out if the knowledge taught has a political bias instead of neutrality and if they have a specific political ideology, the education won't interfere with that.

You still need to prove the correlation between university political imbalance to the education taught and the consequences of that education. The objection can't just be "Some universities have political imbalance - Therefore a political license will be biased".

It's barely different, barely addresses any of the problems and you don't take any of the potential problems it could cause seriously. Populism works not because of politicians but because of voters, I don't know how much of an issue populism is. Populism comes about because people feel disenfranchised and failed by democracy in the first place. — Judaka

By saying it's barley different you effectively straw man the entire idea or ignore portions of my argument, like the Dual Process effect on parliamentary members. And the problems you raise are still too weak and closer to slippery slope ideas of the consequences.

Populism may have been the wrong wording here as, like you say, it has more to do with the people than politicians. What I mean is demagogical politicians and the populist result among the people. Epistemic Democracy helps reduce the demagogical nature of today's representative democracies.

Essentially,

At the moment, demagogical politics is all over nations like Britain and US. A change in political praxis and higher dialectic quality is needed to combat these things from happening. The challenge is to change it without blocking democratic voices in society, meaning, the risk of an elite or specific ideology taking over. While there are many changes that can be done to the representative democracy that exists today, my thesis is that we need to change some fundamental parts of how representative democracy works in order to reduce demagogical politics from rising and populism taking over public discourse.

Is Camus right in his idea about Philosophical suicide and that the atheist path is the authentic one? Is belief in a religion or some secular ideology a type of avoiding asking life's fundamental questions. It's a refusal to acknowledge that the world is meaningless and indifferent yet humans continually try to find meaning. My view is that Camus's solution would not work for many people including those who are religious. Their belief whether God exists or not provides them with a sense of meaning and purpose in life and to tell them that their belief is philosophical suicide seems rather arrogant I think — Ross Campbell

Ignorance is bliss you mean? Because that's what the sense of meaning in religion gives you. You are ignoring to think about the world and life authentically and without filters in order to feel content with a meaning that has been given to you by others, not yourself.

Yes, this is the philosophy degree -> better politician determinism I asked about before. You've obviously derived this ab initio from the superiority of philosophy that you perceive, and I don't deny that philosophy teaches good things like scepticism. I do deny that the output of that is good sceptics or good politicians, in the same way that a medical degree is not a thing that generally yields good gynaecologists. — Kenosha Kid

Skepticism is only part of it and I'll quote what I wrote about the psychological aspect.

For the education part of the argument, I'd add the psychological Dual Process Theory to the mix. Popularized by Daniel Kahneman it speaks of the two systems our brain is using to make decisions, where system 1 acts on impulse and system 2 acts through reflectability. Why I bring up these is because studies have shown that through experience and training you can improve the speed of system 2 which is slower and often overlooked when making decisions. The act of doing philosophy, training in philosophy can in itself improve the use and speed of system 2, reducing the biases you have when making decisions and forming conclusions.

So with education in, primarily, philosophy, you will not only give knowledge in deductive and inductive methods of dialectics, but you will also improve the use of system 2 compared to without education the overuse of system 1. — Christoffer

I don't feel you're even trying to make a compelling argument for the education you've suggested and instead you're just saying that some form of education would be preferable for you. — Judaka

Fair enough.

For the education part of the argument, I'd add the psychological Dual Process Theory to the mix. Popularized by Daniel Kahneman it speaks of the two systems our brain is using to make decisions, where system 1 acts on impulse and system 2 acts through reflectability. Why I bring up these is because studies have shown that through experience and training you can improve the speed of system 2 which is slower and often overlooked when making decisions. The act of doing philosophy, training in philosophy can in itself improve the use and speed of system 2, reducing the biases you have when making decisions and forming conclusions.

So with education in, primarily, philosophy, you will not only give knowledge in deductive and inductive methods of dialectics, but you will also improve the use of system 2 compared to without education the overuse of system 1.

Just look at universities today, they are far from politically impartial, many are famous for their political leanings. Who teaches the licence, what kind of thinker does it produce and does it restrict the types of politicians that can be elected. — Judaka

For this objection to be valid you need to prove that universities today produce biased educated people and that they are in fact acting with those imprinted biases after education is over. The objection that universities are politically impartial is often used in a fallacious way to argue that education is broken and nothing good can come out of it or at least nothing that fits your biases about the world is taught within them. So this objection is pretty weak for arguing against the need for politics based-education of politicians.

As I've said a few times now, I just don't have any confidence in your proposals to be implemented fairly. — Judaka

Is this system fairer than how regular representative democracy system is now in most parts of the world? Why is the current system fairer? Education, in order to be a licensed decision-maker, does not mean you are less rooted in ideological opinions, but it creates better praxis of parliament and less populistic ideals. Is it fairer that by people's choice we vote in specific names into parliament, but the majority of people in parliament actually voting on decisions are people who get put there by the parties and in so doing the people have no control of those agents? Either we get people to vote on all members of parliamentary seats or we demand better praxis and knowledge of the people making decisions.

I haven't been sold on why the fact-checker is necessary and I am concerned that politicians can be silenced or forced to reword their arguments based on the fact-checkers opinions about biases or fallacies. — Judaka

In what way would a fact-checker be biased or have fallacies? The fact-checkers only purpose is to spot factual errors, fallacies and biases. If the fact-checker points out a bias that isn't a bias, a fallacy that isn't a fallacy or corrects on facts with their own factual errors, those things can be objected against. You could also object that the fact-checker didn't spot a bias or fallacy in someone else's argument. But we already have a speaker seat in parliament and that speaker has the job to be unbiased and impartial to the debates in parliament. This is extending the toolset to improve the quality of debates.

To say that it can lead to silencing politicians is to do a slippery slope and in so too simplified as an objection to the praxis of this parliament position.

Just as you accused me of using a fallacy, who's right on that? It's dangerous because if the fact-checker is being uncharitable with people or parties he doesn't like or if he's just incompetent then that's going to be a huge problem. — Judaka

Let's take that last fallacy as an example. How do I conclude that it is? You say that the fact-checker leads to silencing? Wouldn't that also be the same if you apply it to the speakers role in parliament today? What is the difference? Why does the fact-checker lead to silencing and how do you conclude this without jumping to the conclusion that the fact-checker has power beyond their actual role? And ignoring any possibility of objection to the fact-checker if they conduct a weak support for calling out a fallacy or bias. You assume absolute power to fit your conclusion that they will have so over politicians debating, but there's no premise that says they have absolute power so saying "it leads to silencing" and unfair practice based on the fact-checkers biases becomes a slippery slope fallacy. If you examine your own counter-argument right here, isn't it clearly a fallacy in your reasoning?

Fallacies and biases are pretty straight forward in their meaning and spotting these help to fine-tune a dialectic past emotional opinions and system 1 type arguments. If the fact-checker is incompetent, that will instantly show when he is unable to underline why something is a fallacy or a bias. Malpractice or incompetence leads to termination of that position, just like if a doctor is incompetent they won't be able to continue practice medicine.

Your counter-arguments assumes a lot of extremes that either already should exist within parliaments right now or they are deliberate simplifications of my premises.

Fair enough. I'm trying to countervail the tendency of those in this thread who treat it as primarily an academic or even philosophical movement of some kind. A confusion - itself confused - of a distinction between postmodernity and post-structuralism, a la Wheatley. — StreetlightX

Ok, gotcha.

The point is that it itself is largely a cultural and aesthetic phenomenon. — StreetlightX

Yes, agreeing with you. But you said "as it should in any discussion of postmodernism", which sounds a bit dismissal of the depth of postmodernism outside aesthetic and cultural impacts.

I mean, deconstructing reality, language etc. can be applied to more than just culture and aesthetics, right? Just wondering how to interpret the conclusion you made?

It's not about what it should be. It's about what it is - and that people need to understand what they are talking about before blabbing on about 'subjective truth' or whatever other wrongheaded trash they associate with postmodernism. — StreetlightX

Yes, agreed, but do you propose that culture and aesthetics is the only thing that it is?

You be mistaking postmodernism with Post Structralism — Wheatley

Postmodernism is closely in connection with poststructuralism.

? I'm not sure what I said implied I was talking about 'some conclusions easily dismissive'. To call something aesthetic or cultural is not at all to dismiss it. If anything to say so is to note it's far broader reach than some academic backwater movement. — StreetlightX

Maybe I read your comment as if postmodernism should only be about culture and aesthetics?
The irony of this is interpreting and deconstructing what that sentence meant :wink:

...to aesthetics and culture - as it should in any discussion of postmodernism. — StreetlightX

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.