Science and Representative Democracy: Experts and Citizens

Cover\nHalftitle page\nSeries page\nTitle page\nCopyright page\nDedication\nContents\nFigures\nAcknowledgments\nIntroduction\n1 Historical Prologue\n	1.1 Introduction\n	1.2 Lippmann’s “Phantom Public”\n	1.3 Dewey’s Criticism of Lippmann: The Methodological Component\n	1.4 Dewey’s Criticism of Lippmann\n2 How Does Science Work?\n	2.1 Methodological Premises: Descriptive and Normative Aspects of Science and Democracy\n	2.2 Scientific Inferences and the Controllability of their Conclusions\n	2.3 The Fallible Character of Science and its Social Consequences\n	2.4 The Controllability of Scientific Knowledge as a Social Phenomenon\n	2.5 The Diachronic Aspect of the Control of Hypotheses and the Evolution of Social Norms\n	2.6 The Role of Criticism in the Decisional Processes of a Democracy\n3 How Does Democracy Work?\n	3.1 Democracy and the Equality Principle as Founded in the Free Access to Scientific Knowledge\n	3.2 Democracy as the Government of the People: A Comparison with the Majority Principle in Science\n	3.3 Democracy as Separation of Powers and the Cross-control of Scientific Hypotheses\n4 Representative Democracy, Direct Democracy, and Scientific Specialization\n	4.1 Two Kinds of Democracies\n	4.2 Populism, Direct Democracy, and its Problems\n	4.3 The Risk of Technocracy: Three Objections tothe Compatibility of Autonomous Decisions and Delegations to Experts\n	4.4 The Confutation of the Three Objections and the Social Character of Knowledge\n	4.5 The Disagreement Among Experts\n5 Scientific Disinformation and the Distrust in Experts\n	5.1 Three Reasons Why we Intuitively Trust Science\n	5.2 Swindlers and the Origin of Disagreement Among Experts\n	5.3 Swindlers\n	5.4 Doubts and Trust\n	5.5 Scientific Fraud and Inductive Risk: Two Additional Sources of Disagreement\n6 How to Navigate in the Disagreement of Experts\n	6.1 The Importance of Scientific Literacy for Democracy: Condorcet’s Jury Theorem\n	6.2 What Should Citizens be Scientifically Literate About?\n	6.3 Functional Illiteracy, Relapse into Illiteracy, and Cultural Scientific Literacy\n	6.4 The Evaluation of the Expert’s Competence Through the Web\n7 The Role of the History and Philosophy of Science in the Democratic Debate\n	7.1 The Role of the History of Science in the Formation of a Scientific Mentality\n	7.2 The Role of Philosophy of Science in the Public Debate\n	7.3 The Philosophy of Science and the Refutation of Relativism\n	7.4 The Desirability of the Objectivity of Scientific Knowledge\nConclusion\nNotes\nReferences\nIndex