作者: Jeroen Van Bouwel , Michiel Van Oudheusden
DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2017.1352624
关键词: Deliberation 、 Democracy 、 Strengths and weaknesses 、 Epistemology 、 Political philosophy 、 Agonism 、 Citizen journalism 、 Sociology 、 Appeal 、 Valuation (finance) 、 Philosophy 、 General Social Sciences
摘要: AbstractIn this article, we inquire into two contemporary participatory formats that seek to democratically intervene in scientific practice: the consensus conference and technology assessment (pTA). We explain how these delegitimize conflict disagreement by making a strong appeal consensus. Based on our direct involvement informed both political philosophy science studies, outline conceptions contrast with ideal, including dissensus, disclosure, conflictual agonistic democracy. Drawing notion of meta-consensus distinction between four models democracy (aggregative, deliberative, agonistic), elaborate more positive valuation provides opportunities for mutual learning, articulation disagreement, democratic modulation—three aspirations are at heart most pTAs conferences. Disclosing strengths weaknesses ...