Comparative Standard in Institutional Epistemology

  • Marko Luka Zubčić Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Rijeka
Keywords: Keywords institutional design, division of cognitive labour, pragmatism, knowledge governance, epistemic performance, social epistemic systems


Which epistemic value is the standard according to which we ought to compare, assess and design institutional arrangements in terms of their epistemic properties? Two main options are agent development (in terms of individual epistemic virtues or capabilities) and attainment of truth. The options are presented through two authoritative contemporary accounts-agent development by Robert Talisse’s understanding in Democracy and Moral Conflict (2009) and attainment of truth by David Estlund’s treatment, most prominently in Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework (2008). Both options are shown to be unsatisfactory because they are subject to problematic risk of suboptimal epistemic state lock-in. The ability of the social epistemic system to revise suboptimal epistemic states is argued to be the best option for a comparative standard in institutional epistemology.


Aligica, Paul Dragos (2014), Institutional Diversity and Political Economy: The Ostroms and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brandom, Robert (2001), Making It Explicit: Reasoning, Representing and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Case, Spencer (2016), “Normative Pluralism Worthy of the Name is False”, Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 11(1).
Estlund, David (2008), Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–. (2003), “Why Not Epistocracy?”, in Neomi Reshotoko (ed.), Desire, Identity and Existence: Essays in honor of T. M. Penner. Academic Printing and Publishing, pp. 53–69.
Fricker, Miranda (2015), “Epistemic Contribution as a Central Human Capability”, in George Hull (ed.), The Equal Society. London: Lexington Books, pp. 73–91.
–. (2009), “Can There Be Institutional Virtues?”, in Tamar Szabo, John Hawthorne Gendler (eds.), Oxford Studies in Epistemology vol. 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 235–253.
Gaus, Gerald (2011), “On Seeking the Truth (Whatever That Is) through Democracy: Estlund’s Case for the Qualified Epistemic Claim”, Ethics 121(2): 270–300.
–. (2008), “Is the Public Incompetent? Compared to Whom? About What?”, Critical Review 20(3): 291–311.
Gilbert, Margaret (2014), Joint Commitment: How We Make the Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hastie, Reid and Robyn Dawes (2001), Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making. Thousand Oakes: Sage Publications.
Hayek, Friedrich August (1982), Law, Legislation and Liberty: A new statement of the liberal principles of justice and political economy. London: Routledge.
–. (1978), “Coping With Ignorance”, Imprimis 7(7): 1–6.
–. (1960), The Constitution of Liberty: Definitive Edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kahneman, Daniel (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kingston, Christopher and Gonzalo Caballero (2009), “Comparing theories of institutional change”, Journal of Institutional Economics 5(2): 151–180.
Kitcher, Philip (1990), “Division of Cognitive Labor”, The Journal of Philosophy 87(1): 5–22.
Landemore, Helene (2012), “Democratic Reason: The Mechanism of Collective Intelligence in Politics”, in Hélène Landemore, Jon Elster (eds.), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 251–290.
List, Christian and Philip Pettit (2011), Group Agency: the Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mayo-Wilson, Conor, Kevin Zollman and David Danks (2011), “The Independence Thesis: When Individual and Social Epistemology Diverge”, Philosophy of Science 78(4): 653–677.
Mill, John Stuart (2003), “On Liberty”, in John Stuart Mill (ed), Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 88–181.
North, Douglass (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor (2005), Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor, Charlotte Hess (2007), “A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons”, in Elinor Ostrom (ed.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. Cambridge: The MIT Press, pp. 41–83.
Page, Scott (2008), The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Schools, Firms, and Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peter, Fabienne (2016), “The Epistemic Circumstances of Democracy”, in Michael Brady, Miranda Fricker (eds.), The Epistemic Life of Groups. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 133–149.
Sunstein, Cass (2009), Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. New York: Oxford University Press.
Talisse, Robert (2009), Democracy and Moral Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tuomela, Raimo (2013), Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zollman, Kevin (2010), “The Epistemic Benefit of Transient Diversity”, Erkenntnis 72(1): 17–35.