I am preparing an essay arguing against epistocracy and for epistemic democracy, one of the main points i make is that epistemic democracy allows for a state of constant feedback and improvement, as individuals provide the experts with information on how to improve, combining it with their theoretical knowledge. Using Deweys example the shoe maker might know how to make a shoe, but only the one who wears it will know how it fits in reality.

the case is that i first show the quality of democracy through Christiano's service conception and then move to explain the importance of cognitive diversity and proximity to issues (which achieves learning through experiences) in making decisions, or atleast choosing those experts with views closest to the problems that must be dealt.

in my uni, they are obsessed with "thought" experiments. When studying Hobbes we were given a "good example" of one, in which we had to show how Hobbes is right in saying that trust between individuals can collapse at any moment and so a sovereign is needed. In this case it was "a case where ones life is in danger, so he protects his biggest priority by stealing. Then he is attacked as the other protects his property and as trust was broken leading to a distrust spiral" i get that this kind of covers assumptions etc, but it doesnt really seem more than just an example of how the theory can fail.

i was considering showing how a body ran by experts can be great in making decisions in theory, which however can be problematic in reality, such as the subsidies for farmers (which are actually not necessary, and they dont deal with the actual problems, and without the farmers' feedback, they will continue to miss the true point).

Can anyone think of something to improve the "thought experiment" or a better idea in this context?