Collective Epistemic Luck

A platitude in epistemology is that an individual’s belief does not qualify as knowledge if it is true by luck. Individuals, however, are not the only bearers of knowledge. Many epistemologists agree that groups can also possess knowledge in a way that is genuinely collective. If groups can know, it is natural to think that, just as true individual beliefs fall short of knowledge due to individual epistemic luck, true collective beliefs may fall short of knowledge because of collective epistemic luck. This paper argues, first, that the dominant view of epistemic luck in the literature, the modal view, does not yield a satisfactory account of lucky collective beliefs. Second, it argues that collective epistemic luck is better explained in terms of groups lacking (suitably defined) forms of control over collective belief formation that are specific to the different procedures for forming collective beliefs. One of the main implications of this, we will argue, is that groups whose beliefs are formed via internal deliberation are more vulnerable to knowledge-undermining collective luck than groups that form their beliefs via non-deliberative methods, such as non-deliberative anonymous voting. The bottom line is that the greater exposure to knowledge-undermining luck that deliberation gives rise to provides a reason (not a conclusive one) for thinking that non-deliberative methods of group belief formation have greater epistemic value.

Addressing Health Disparities Through Deliberative Methods: Citizens’ Panels for Health Equity

Health disparities adversely affect millions of people living in disadvantaged communities, resisting public health interventions that do not address the specific conditions, driving forces, or health problems in these communities. Drawing from the underutilized science of deliberative methods, we introduce the innovative citizens’ panels for health equity approach—a novel methodology that engages public expertise and knowledge of community health needs, risks, and priorities to tailor public health research and interventions for greater relevance and impact on disadvantaged communities. By engaging affected residents and stakeholders in informed deliberation and decision-making about community health disparities, citizens’ panels provide important guidance for (1) designing research studies to target the major health disparities affecting disadvantaged communities and (2) tailoring evidence-based interventions to the perspectives, practices, and preferences of disadvantaged residents. Employed as the primary methodology in 2 federally funded projects conducted in California and Arkansas between 2017 and 2019, citizens’ panels offer a systematic method for obtaining rich community insight into health disparities, shaping community-informed solutions, and affording disadvantaged communities influence over public health decision-making to stimulate grassroots change and health equity.

Does talking matter? A quasi-experiment assessing the impact of deliberation and information on opinion change

Deliberative democracy is for many the most significant development in democratic theory in the last 50 years and it has been used in some places to solve real-world policy problems. However, measuring the impact of deliberative methods is not clearly achievable because several independent variables are manipulated simultaneously. One of the main goals of deliberation is opinion change and thus it is important to understand why opinions change. This paper utilises comparison groups in order to isolate the impact of deliberation from information in the deliberative process. We outline the results of a quasi-experiment in which deliberation took place in a citizens’ assembly (CA) in Ireland. As part of this we measured the impact using pre- and post-test controls, including a group given the information the CA participants received, but without the deliberation. The results of the analysis provide evidence of a separate deliberation effect.

Biobanks and the Moral Concerns of Donors: A Democratic Deliberation

Do members of the public believe that biobanks should accommodate the moral concerns of donors about the types of research done with their biospecimens? The answer to this question is critical to the future of genomic and precision medicine, endeavors that rely on a public willing to share their biospecimens and medical data. To explore public attitudes regarding the requirements of consent for biobank donations, we organized three democratic deliberations involving 180 participants. The deliberative sessions involved small group discussions informed by presentations given by experts in both biobank research and ethics. We found that participants had a sophisticated understanding of the ethical problems of biobank consent and the complexity of balancing donor concerns while promoting research important to the future of health care. Our research shows how deliberative methods can offer policy makers creative ideas for accommodating the moral concerns of donors in the biobank consent process.

Methods of Democratic Decision-Making

The paper reflects on the methods democratic systems use for arriving at decisions. The most popular ones are elections where the majority rules and deliberative democracy. I argue that both of these do not measure up to the demands of democracy. Whether we use voting with majority rule or deliberative methods, only a portion of the citizenry is allowed to rule itself; minorities are always excluded. Instead of voting with majority ruler or deliberative methods, I suggest that we employ mediation (ADR) to reach agreement in democratic publics.

Designing Public Deliberation at the Intersection of Science and Public Policy

An increasingly popular means of engaging the public uses small-scale deliberative forums, with anywhere from a dozen to hundreds or thousands of citizens meeting face-to-face or online to consider policy questions with important scientific dimensions. When designing such processes, policymakers and civic organizations need to consider how they recruit and retain engaged participants, how they structure the deliberative process itself, and the impacts they hope to achieve, not just for participants but also for the wider society. Although research conducted on deliberation shows the efficacy of these processes, the field will benefit from more systematic analysis of alternative deliberative methods, particularly at different points of entry within the policymaking system.