The second lecture was devoted to "institutional social epistemology", which can be prompted by interpersonal social epistemology. Suppose a highly respected former government official recommends a new anti-terrorist practice on the basis of his specialist experience. Should he mention (of his own accord) that he benefits from this practice? Should there be a standard of public discourse requiring this of those who speak in the public arena? What norms in general should regulate public discourse and media practices? These are institutional questions of social epistemology, because discourse and information practices have implications for the guarantees of public beliefs. When journalists report various alleged facts, what should they be asked to disclose about their sources? Another area where institutional social epistemology can have an impact is the organization of legal trials. How should trials be designed to produce the maximum proportion of just verdicts? What are the respective merits of the two main traditions of Western law, civil law and common law? How can each be improved? Finally, what is the role of knowledge in a democracy? Epistemic approaches have gained popularity in recent theories of democracy, not least because of the "Condorcet" voting method. How does the "Condorcet" method support the theory of democracy? Where else does social epistemology contribute to the theory of democracy?
16:30 - 17:30
Guest lecturer
Institutional Social Epistemology: Democracy, Power and Knowledge
Alvin Goldman
