The mud throwing is not a consequence of incompetence primary, but of ruling-party/opposition-party dynamics. They see parlement as an arena wherein they fight for the favour of the crowd... and election cycles and the principle of democracy gives them the incentive to see it that way. And so I think if you don't change that incentive, that dynamic won't really go away. — ChatteringMonkey

If you change the praxis of debate, if you demand unbiased arguments without fallacies and factual errors, there's no need for mud throws. You can argue for the people who voted on you, but in a much higher quality than just populistic rants.

A politician is no isolated island that relies solely on his or her abilities. Usually they have a personal staff of various experts they can rely on, and more importantly they are part of parties that certainly have teams of experts in every domain. — ChatteringMonkey

That won't go away. I'm just proposing to increase the quality of politicians in parliament. If they aren't experts in an area, they need to be experts on how to handle information and debate a topic. It's a different field of expertise to be a politician, that right now in our current system we have no such demand for expertise. Epistemic democracy force politicians to not just be representatives, but experts in being representatives. That's the key difference.

and what happens then in parliament is not a matter of dialectics anymore, but of rethorics. — ChatteringMonkey

Which is the change to parliament I also propose here. The debates taking place is there to reach a voting conclusion. So increasing their quality would increase the quality of those votes.

Essentially I want to move away from experts who give their expertise to amateurs who then debate and decide. I want to have experts who give expertise to dialectic experts who decide closer to facts than popularity.

What is the difference between a parliamentary politician in representative democracies today and someone in an epistemic democracy? — Christoffer

But that's not the differentiation I made. I'm on board with elected officials being educated, and I'm on board with philosophy forming part of that (indeed everyone's) education. But even in debate, I'd still prefer the woman arguing economic policy to understand economics first and foremost. A two-two in philosophy just doesn't cut it.

It is your belief that there's a simple equation: a philosophy graduate = a better political thinker. I don't even think this is true. Some philosophy graduates will be superior thinkers. But some will be solipsists, a great many are theologians, some deny the material world, some deny causality, some will argue for an ethics of self-advancement. I don't want any of those people running the country.

I'd actually make a stronger argument for physics being a better option: it at least grounds you in some understanding of reality; physicists are overwhelmingly atheists which will guarantee a separation of church and state; they have an average IQ well above politicians; they tend not to be partisan (at least here); they are equipped with the mathematical knowledge to understand economic theory; they are used to modelling complex systems like a society; they're used to thinking big picture (cosmology) so are unlikely to be vulnerable to malicious lobbies; they also understand that the smallest of things are important. Okay, their empathy skills are low, but there's the argument that you actually need your leaders to be a little psychopathic. Overall, physics is clearly the superior choice of universal political education... according to a physicist!

Which is the change to parliament I also propose here. The debates taking place is there to reach a voting conclusion. So increasing their quality would increase the quality of those votes.

Essentially I want to move away from experts who give their expertise to amateurs who then debate and decide. I want to have experts who give expertise to dialectic experts who decide closer to facts than popularity. — Christoffer

I don't think you fully understood the ramifications of what I'm saying. It's not the representatives who decide. Or they decide only 'technically', the decisions are determined beforehand. So what gets decided beforehand determines the quality of the votes, not the parliamentary proces.

If you change the praxis of debate, if you demand unbiased arguments without fallacies and factual errors, there's no need for mud throws. You can argue for the people who voted on you, but in a much higher quality than just populistic rants. — Christoffer

The need is determined by the incentive, which remains unchanged. If you want a higher level of rethoric in parliament, what would really help I think is if people would expect a higher level of debate... if they would punish representatives electorally for poor rethoric. And maybe you could accomplish that by educating or informing the people... not necessarily the politicians.

How do you decide the requirements for being a politician without being yourself political? You cannot create an impartial course on these topics.

Besides learning parliament rules, what else is impartial if it's specific?

If you had explained the license differently then my comments would be different. If it was a specialised course that prepared you for the practical elements of the job you're intending to take then it could be compared to medicine. As it stands, it's more of a bachelor of arts.

I think that you are making a fallacy with the idea that "because epistemic doesn't make experts of politicians it is not better than the status quo." — Christoffer

Here's already the issue with the "fact-checker" who looks out for biases and fallacies, your accusation here is demonstrably false given how I've repeatedly said that I think it will make absolutely no improvement on the status quo. When it was just facts, I was okay with it, now it's also biases and fallacies and I think it's too dangerous.

I certainly don't trust anyone to moderate my posts, the moderators on this forum are legit the worst posters here.

The idea is asinine and that's my position, now I can assume the role of fact-checker and do not respond to my criticism, just go back and rewrite your argument, I will let you know if it's logical or not and if it isn't then you can rewrite it again. You didn't lose this debate but I've determined that your position is illogical therefore you must rewrite it so we can get to the truth beyond your biases and fallacies.

No comment on the increased quality of parliament debates.

But that's not the differentiation I made. I'm on board with elected officials being educated, and I'm on board with philosophy forming part of that (indeed everyone's) education. But even in debate, I'd still prefer the woman arguing economic policy to understand economics first and foremost. A two-two in philosophy just doesn't cut it. — Kenosha Kid

I think ChatteringMonkey put this in perspective when arguing that politicians have a staff made up of experts and that many decisions are made outside of the actual parliamental debates. So you don't have to be a spearheaded expert in economy for putting forth an economy proposal. However, if everyone is educated to be politicians you have a baseline understanding of the proposal itself. You might even have further combined knowledge of the consequences of the proposal and therefore be able to conduct a rational debate about it.

What I mean is that philosophical methods of debating are more focused on rational balanced facts than just convincing rhetoric. We don't lose experts by this, we add expertise in one link of the democratic chain.

With that said, maybe additional education is needed for the role of ministers? You can still be part of the parliament without being a minister of something. But I think because the pure experts in different fields are behind the scenes, it's not really needed.

It is your belief that there's a simple equation: a philosophy graduate = a better political thinker. I don't even think this is true. Some philosophy graduates will be superior thinkers. But some will be solipsists, a great many are theologians, some deny the material world, some deny causality, some will argue for an ethics of self-advancement. I don't want any of those people running the country. — Kenosha Kid

Philosophy is part of the education I listed. It's also focused on philosophical methods of dialectics and moral philosophy surrounding the job as a politician. What I mean is that the education isn't just normal philosophy for a philosophy degree, it's an education for a political license, it's for that purpose specifically. So the philosophy taught is focused primarily on debate methods and dialectics, moral philosophy and justice, epistemology and through that skeptical approaches. Metaphysics, for example, is just part of the introductory, it's not the focus since the education is aimed at a specific philosophical practice.

A politician who studies through this education will learn history, economy, political philosophy, moral philosophy, epistemology, leadership, psychology and philosophical dialectic methods that will be used in parliament. The philosophy part is primarily aimed at how to discuss things in society before making decisions, helping the rational thought and debates about it. In essence, it will force each political party to be able to argue rationally for their ideology in a way that makes voting more clear in its consequences.

I'd actually make a stronger argument for physics being a better option: it at least grounds you in some understanding of reality; physicists are overwhelmingly atheists which will guarantee a separation of church and state; they have an average IQ well above politicians; they tend not to be partisan (at least here); they are equipped with the mathematical knowledge to understand economic theory; they are used to modelling complex systems like a society; they're used to thinking big picture (cosmology) so are unlikely to be vulnerable to malicious lobbies; they also understand that the smallest of things are important. Okay, their empathy skills are low, but there's the argument that you actually need your leaders to be a little psychopathic. Overall, physics is clearly the superior choice of universal political education... according to a physicist! — Kenosha Kid

Philosophy demands rational thinking with strong premises. It also has a focus on things that politicians are always dealing with such as justice, morality, ideology, making hard decisions with life/death consequences.

I think you view philosophy in another way than I do within the context of epistemic democracy. I focus on the practice of dialectical scrutiny, the focus on strong premised, unbiased arguments together with an understanding of moral theories, deeper ideological understanding as well as how the praxis of philosophical debate erases all populistic behaviors in parliament.

I don't think you fully understood the ramifications of what I'm saying. It's not the representatives who decide. Or they decide only 'technically', the decisions are determined beforehand. So what gets decided beforehand determines the quality of the votes, not the parliamentary proces. — ChatteringMonkey

It might be the case that lobbyist and politics behind the curtains make some of the representatives decide before being in parliament pressing the buttons, but it's still happening there and there are many cases where party members go against their own members if they think their own party has it wrong. The debates taking place in parliament is there in order to discuss proposals, to recruit votes within the parliament. So if those debates had a much higher level of quality, the expert input from the staff of each party can be debated at a higher level of quality.

Also, remember that representative democracise in the world can be very different from each other. US, British, Nordic democracies differ very much from each other and that might be part of the confusion when talking about epistemic democracy.

if they would punish representatives electorally for poor rethoric. And maybe you could accomplish that by educating or informing the people... not necessarily the politicians. — ChatteringMonkey

I still think that raising the bar for debate quality and having a fact-checker present who can stop politicians with bad arguments, demanding them to improve them before continuing, would lead to that and be easier to accomplish than educating the entire people.

The basic question I'm asking is why politicians who can make decisions of life and death for the people, aren't demanded to have a license, just like any other job with such risks? The first thing to counter-argue would be to ask why not having such licenses is better than having them.

How do you decide the requirements for being a politician without being yourself political? You cannot create an impartial course on these topics. — Judaka

What do politicians do? What decisions are they making? You mean to say that we don't know these things? If they debate about new laws, if they discuss ideological differences, if they are solving a migrant crisis, if they are deciding on how to handle a pandemic etc. you mean that they won't be better at it with an education mentioned? If they have a broader spectrum knowledge about these things and the experts in staff have a deeper knowledge in specific topics, they will be much better at actually forming educated proposals.

If you had explained the license differently then my comments would be different. If it was a specialised course that prepared you for the practical elements of the job you're intending to take then it could be compared to medicine. As it stands, it's more of a bachelor of arts. — Judaka

What would you have in an education that aims to give a broad spectrum overview of subjects a politician needs to handle and discuss as well as the necessary knowledge in deductive and inductive arguments for dialectic debates? Which topics should be included in such an education that aims to get you a political license?

I've repeatedly said that I think it will make absolutely no improvement on the status quo. When it was just facts, I was okay with it, now it's also biases and fallacies and I think it's too dangerous. — Judaka

It's been about that since the beginning argument. Did you read my OP in detail?
You have repeatedly said this, but I've yet to hear why it wouldn't change how things are today? Politicians today debate with no respect to making good rational arguments and it clogs the democratic system with populistic nonsense. How would a fact-checker who conducts the debates towards better quality arguments from each side, not be an improvement, I'd like to hear the why and why it's dangerous. You only say that, but not in what way?

I certainly don't trust anyone to moderate my posts, the moderators on this forum are legit the worst posters here. — Judaka

So your counter-argument is based on personal experience of the mods of this forum? That is not a valid counter-argument.

The idea is asinine and that's my position, now I can assume the role of fact-checker and do not respond to my criticism, just go back and rewrite your argument, I will let you know if it's logical or not and if it isn't then you can rewrite it again. You didn't lose this debate but I've determined that your position is illogical therefore you must rewrite it so we can get to the truth beyond your biases and fallacies. — Judaka

I think you have made up an idea about the fact-checker based on your own experiences with mods on this forum and probably people elsewhere, but that is not any explanation to why such a role in parliament would be dangerous. To spot biases and fallacies, to demand correct facts in the arguments is about getting rid of populistic bullshit and demagogical practices.

If you ever watched the debates in the British parliament you would understand what I'm getting at here.

You need to make a proper counter-argument for why such a role would be dangerous, not your own personal experience, that has no value for me and this theory.

I think you view philosophy in another way than I do within the context of epistemic democracy. I focus on the practice of dialectical scrutiny, the focus on strong premised, unbiased arguments together with an understanding of moral theories, deeper ideological understanding as well as how the praxis of philosophical debate erases all populistic behaviors in parliament. — Christoffer

No, I do dig it. It keeps coming back to a belief that seems unjustified to me. I wonder if your experience of others really verifies that this brew of education has so consistently churned out top drawer politicians.

My point is that this is not necessary. Your plan requires a separate qualification for ministerial posts, which presumably means that, to occupy such a post, a politician must fulfil two distinct educational criteria. Why? Does an economist who might become a minister not have a sounder basis to debate economics, even if nothing else? I think what she brings to the table is more valuable and more conducive to eradicating incompetence than better general debating skills, etc.

Yes, she's maybe not going to be able to debate foreign policy as well as someone with a general political education, but no matter, since she is one of hundreds.

Also, I think the idea of requiring further specialism in addition to general philosophy, etc. is moving away from the philosopher king idea, since it is the executive that creates law: the representatives debate and vote.

Overall, I'm not opposed to a general grounding in salient fields as a requisite. But I think a broader meritocracy covers that. You can have morally sound politicians, great economists, great debaters, great diplomats, great lawyers, the works, and that melting point of experience and achievement would far outdo an identikit political education.

It might be the case that lobbyist and politics behind the curtains make some of the representatives decide before being in parliament pressing the buttons, but it's still happening there and there are many cases where party members go against their own members if they think their own party has it wrong. The debates taking place in parliament is there in order to discuss proposals, to recruit votes within the parliament. So if those debates had a much higher level of quality, the expert input from the staff of each party can be debated at a higher level of quality. — Christoffer

Sure, I'm not saying it wouldn't matter at all, I'm just saying there might be better ways of achieving the goal. Things like diminishing power of political parties, better accountability through review of representatives, better press reporting through regulation of the media, etc etc... might be more effective.

I still think that raising the bar for debate quality and having a fact-checker present who can stop politicians with bad arguments, demanding them to improve them before continuing, would lead to that and be easier to accomplish than educating the entire people.

The basic question I'm asking is why politicians who can make decisions of life and death for the people, aren't demanded to have a license, just like any other job with such risks? The first thing to counter-argue would be to ask why not having such licenses is better than having them. — Christoffer

I certainly can think of some reasons.... By licensing a profession you create an additional barrier of entry into the profession, which does fly a bit into the face of the principle of democracy. It's hard as it is now to get into politics as an average Joe, and then you are only making it harder.

Licensing through education also typically favours those with the means to finance the education, so there is also the risk you skew political representation in favour of certain classes. And then there is the risk that it ends up in a sort of closed club of people favouring eachother in the licensing proces. I don't think it would be evident at all to keep the whole proces fair and free from corruption, especially since so much is at stake.

A typical alternative for licensing, and less restrictive, is quality labels. The goal is the same, namely increasing quality in the profession, but the difference is that you do not legally restrict entry into the profession, but you grant labels based on objective reviews, and let the customer decide if they want to buy product from someone who doesn't get the label. That's basically what i'd propose instead, because it seems to jive better with the principle of democracy and you also avoid some of the risks that come with licenses.

You can have morally sound politicians, great economists, great debaters, great diplomats, great lawyers, the works, and that melting point of experience and achievement would far outdo an identikit political education. — Kenosha Kid

On which, it seems dangerous to have a curriculum for representation. I suspect such a thing would end up being representative of the educators, not the electorate.

Overall, I'm not opposed to a general grounding in salient fields as a requisite. But I think a broader meritocracy covers that. You can have morally sound politicians, great economists, great debaters, great diplomats, great lawyers, the works, and that melting point of experience and achievement would far outdo an identikit political education. — Kenosha Kid

The problem with only meritocracy is that it's easier to corrupt with nepotism in systems where education isn't funded by the state and taxes. The education I propose is free for all in order to enable anyone in society to pursue the role of parliament politician.

It could be argued however that a synthesis of the two is the best version. That the ministers coming from more spearheaded education, like the minister of economy having a higher education for that role. However, I think that the foundational education for being a politician has the knowledge needed for better application of parliamentary praxis, while improving the quality of discussions and arguments held within and before actual votes.

Even if experts create the foundation for decisions, they will go through debate and voting as the last instance before being put into national practice. Right now it's like having experts recommending actions taken and those recommendations are given to amateurs to decide upon.

Epistemic Democracy is in its simplest form a request for better parliamentary praxis and educational baseline for all at those power positions. To represent the people shouldn't be to represent stupidity, it should be to represent by interpreting the will of the people through rational thought rather than populism.

Sure, I'm not saying it wouldn't matter at all, I'm just saying there might be better ways of achieving the goal. Things like diminishing power of political parties, better accountability through review of representatives, better press reporting through regulation of the media, etc etc... might be more effective. — ChatteringMonkey

No solution is a final solution to all problems. I'm behind those ideas as well, but still thinks a baseline knowledge for the praxis of parliamentary politicians would help get rid of much of the post-truth populism we see today.

It's hard as it is now to get into politics as an average Joe, and then you are only making it harder. — ChatteringMonkey

The average joes can't all become doctors either, even if they want to. I think the idea basically has to do with how we view the work of politicians. I see it as having a tremendous responsibility over the people and therefore I see it as equally important to have a license in order to practice it without harm towards the people.

I may not have all the knits and bolts figured out about the actual education, but I am quite certain of the possible benefits this would have on the praxis of parliament.

I also mentioned that you can as an average joe still be part of the party you want to influence. You just can't work within parliament and vote. But you can be part of the staff of the party and you can get the education any time you want if you have the career of being a politician in mind.

Having great power over the people requires great responsibility (insert Spider-Man quote here)

Licensing through education also typically favours those with the means to finance the education, so there is also the risk you skew political representation in favour of certain classes. — ChatteringMonkey

Not if it's free. That's the reason it's an important part of the system even in countries that doesn't have free education. In a country like Sweden, education is free for all so it's not a problem, but in a country like the US you would need to have this specific education free of charge, maybe with funding for living at a campus in order to make the position available for anyone who wants to pursue the role of politicians.

That is an essential part in order to not skew the democracy into a power class system.

That's basically what i'd propose instead, because it seems to jive better with the principle of democracy and you also avoid some of the risks that come with licenses. — ChatteringMonkey

There are no risks if the education is available for all and at no cost. If someone can't pass the education, they don't have the qualification to do that specific job, but could still work as staff within the party. There are better ways of education than the faulty version the US has, which is a neoliberal nightmare of exclusion.

Epistemic Democracy is in its simplest form a request for better parliamentary praxis and educational baseline for all at those power positions. To represent the people shouldn't be to represent stupidity, it should be to represent by interpreting the will of the people through rational thought rather than populism. — Christoffer

Yeah, I do like the idea, but we have to acknowledge its limitations and vulnerabilities. It is still a kind of meritocracy and suffers the same flaws as that. An intuitively moral person who could make a difference in a vote but lacks the academic skill to get a degree will be disqualified, while an academically gifted villain will not.

A universal baseline education seems easy to corrupt to me, more so than the current melting pot approach. I'm not sure how it would respond to progress. Philosophy, for instance, is very slow-moving; psychology is new and rapidly evolving. Have you given any thought to how one might stop would-be politicians all being taught the same wrong or immoral thing? That said, we're at a time in the UK where everyone had more or less the same childhood education. I hope that hasn't contributed to the failure of our politics :D

No solution is a final solution to all problems. I'm behind those ideas as well, but still thinks a baseline knowledge for the praxis of parliamentary politicians would help get rid of much of the post-truth populism we see today. — Christoffer

I doubt it, post-truth populism is a much wider phenomenon than parliament, then politics even.

The average joes can't all become doctors either, even if they want to. I think the idea basically has to do with how we view the work of politicians. I see it as having a tremendous responsibility over the people and therefore I see it as equally important to have a license in order to practice it without harm towards the people. — Christoffer

There's a big difference though, doctors aren't supposed to be elected democratically, and there are more tangible ways to objectively evaluate the skills of a doctor than those of a politician.

Not if it's free. — Christoffer

It's never totally "free", in the sense that even if you don't have to pay for the education itself, there are costs of living and the opportunity cost of not having an income while you get the education. I live in a country with free education and there is still a class divide in those that get an education and those that do not. Poor people need to earn money to pay for the costs of living. And even aside from the money issues, there would be class differences just because of the values and skills one gets from their parents.

An intuitively moral person who could make a difference in a vote but lacks the academic skill to get a degree will be disqualified, while an academically gifted villain will not. — Kenosha Kid

With the education available for all, it would still be better than having none. So the villain would be an uneducated villain as it is now and the intuitively moral person as well. But with the education system, we get an educated villain, but also an intuitively moral person with even better perspective on their moral intuition.

For me, philosophy is probably the least corruptable within academia. The reason being that one primary goal of it is to be skeptical of the knowledge you learn within it. While scientific educations may look unbiased, they can be corrupted. So philosophy is a great way to force people to see past their biases and if the praxis within the job they have educated towards feature a focus on philosophical unbiased rationality, it's even harder to maintain a bias.

I think that if we compare a system without this education and a system with such an education, the probability of higher quality praxis in parliament increases. So, not a utopia, but an improvement over current representative democratic norms.

I doubt it, post-truth populism is a much wider phenomenon than parliament, then politics even. — ChatteringMonkey

Agree, it's a normalized behavior of today. But I think that this is part in solving these issues, not "the" solution.

There's a big difference though, doctors aren't supposed to be elected democratically, and there are more tangible ways to objectively evaluate the skills of a doctor than those of a politician. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, they differ, but the key point of the politician is unbiased praxis. What I'm aiming at is that even though politicians come from different ideologies, they need to rationally argue their proposals in parliament without biases. Right now we have no actual fact-checking and no actual focus on quality of arguments in any parliament. We could argue that media has the role of fact-checking, but since media tends to focus on drama rather than the quality of truth, their role has somewhat diminished as a "reviewer" of power. All while people's apathy towards both politics and truth in media makes room for populism to grow easier.

If we take steps towards increasing the quality of rationality and facts in parliament and politics we could increase the probability of keeping some of that populism out.

All we can do in a political system is to increase the probability of quality, not guarantee it.

It's never totally "free", in the sense that even if you don't have to pay for the education itself, there are costs of living and the opportunity cost of not having an income while you get the education. I live in a country with free education and there is still a class divide in those that get an education and those that do not. Poor people need to earn money to pay for the costs of living. And even aside from the money issues, there would be class differences just because of the values and skills one gets from their parents. — ChatteringMonkey

In Sweden, you get paid to go to higher education. If you need more than the base sum, you take a low-interest loan specifically aimed at education that is paid back through the job you get later on. There are ways to battle the problems with enabling this education for anyone, but since it is a fundamental part of the democracy where it is applied, it might need to have special rules of funding in order to maintain that equality. You should be able to get this education even if you come from absolutely nothing (of course normal education is needed as a foundation, but that is true even for how politics is today).

This might even be an incentive to poor people to get out of poor conditions and wouldn't that be an interesting way to increase diversity in politics and get other voices than the privileged in power? I mean, even if you aren't directly working within parliament, getting the education and a license has a weight towards working in other parts of a party constellation.

But with the education system, we get an educated villain, but also an intuitively moral person with even better perspective on their moral intuition. — Christoffer

But not necessarily the requisite qualification to stand for election. That's the issue: it holds academic achievement, albeit in a particular and apt domain, above other qualities that the electorate may discern.

For me, philosophy is probably the least corruptable within academia. The reason being that one primary goal of it is to be skeptical of the knowledge you learn within it. While scientific educations may look unbiased, they can be corrupted. So philosophy is a great way to force people to see past their biases and if the praxis within the job they have educated towards feature a focus on philosophical unbiased rationality, it's even harder to maintain a bias. — Christoffer

Yes, this is the philosophy degree -> better politician determinism I asked about before. You've obviously derived this ab initio from the superiority of philosophy that you perceive, and I don't deny that philosophy teaches good things like scepticism. I do deny that the output of that is good sceptics or good politicians, in the same way that a medical degree is not a thing that generally yields good gynaecologists.

I'm clearly not here to piss on philosophy, I love philosophy, and you're obviously in good company. I'm sure most philosophy students, graduates, and pedagogues are equally convinced of philosophy's superiority in producing superior people fit for politics. But a) that's what I mean when I say: "according to a philosopher" -- communists will see the superior value in what communism teaches, for instance -- and b) to me that counts against you. I personally don't see it. I see that the potential for it is there in what you learn in philosophy, but I do not see the determinism in producing such people. It does not accord with my experience, and a failure to address that makes me suspicious.

But we can cover that over and agree that some passing grade in some yet-to-be-perfected curriculum could be a requirement for wanting to stand for election. I would say that, if this produces 'good' (moral and capable) politicians and not just people good at winning at politics, it would be a good thing to teach everyone at school. I feel this would solve a much larger class of problems.

Yes, they differ, but the key point of the politician is unbiased praxis. What I'm aiming at is that even though politicians come from different ideologies, they need to rationally argue their proposals in parliament without biases. Right now we have no actual fact-checking and no actual focus on quality of arguments in any parliament. We could argue that media has the role of fact-checking, but since media tends to focus on drama rather than the quality of truth, their role has somewhat diminished as a "reviewer" of power. All while people's apathy towards both politics and truth in media makes room for populism to grow easier. — Christoffer

I don't know if it really possible to use ideology and unbiased in the same sentence. That's maybe a bit hyperbolic, but isn't politics and ideology essentially viewing the world through the lens of a certain group or values associated with particular groups. So a certain bias seems part and parcel of the politician. If you want them to act more like scientists or philosophers, that will be an uphill battle it seems to me.

In Sweden, you get paid to go to higher education. If you need more than the base sum, you take a low-interest loan specifically aimed at education that is paid back through the job you get later on. There are ways to battle the problems with enabling this education for anyone, but since it is a fundamental part of the democracy where it is applied, it might need to have special rules of funding in order to maintain that equality. You should be able to get this education even if you come from absolutely nothing (of course normal education is needed as a foundation, but that is true even for how politics is today).

This might even be an incentive to poor people to get out of poor conditions and wouldn't that be an interesting way to increase diversity in politics and get other voices than the privileged in power? I mean, even if you aren't directly working within parliament, getting the education and a license has a weight towards working in other parts of a party constellation. — Christoffer

Okay, maybe there is a way to make it less unequal, don't really want to push that point... that way seems a long way for a lot of countries though, maybe not for a country like Sweden, because they'll have to reform their entire education system. Only financing this one education seems like a bad idea because you will get a giant influx of students only in that one education then, just because it's the only one that is financed.

Anyway, I think I said most of what I had to say on the topic, and I don't think I will entirely agree with the proposal... but still, it was a good discussion.

Maybe I'll just add this one point, I don't think populist votes are the result of a lack of quality in political debate, I think rather it's the result of a lack of true committent to the biases politicians supposed to have. All ideologies have become to much empty window-dressing to sell themselves to the public so that they can remain in or get into power, and so in that sense they are all more or less interchangeable... and nothing really changes either way. That's what's breeding the apathy in politics.

How do you deal with a migrant crisis then? How do you educate someone on how to handle that without your biases coming into play? The right-wing and left-wing responses are totally different. This applies to most situations.

I don't feel you're even trying to make a compelling argument for the education you've suggested and instead you're just saying that some form of education would be preferable for you. Even if I conceded that this were true, I see huge issues with the licence. Just look at universities today, they are far from politically impartial, many are famous for their political leanings. Who teaches the licence, what kind of thinker does it produce and does it restrict the types of politicians that can be elected.

As I've said a few times now, I just don't have any confidence in your proposals to be implemented fairly. I haven't been sold on why the fact-checker is necessary and I am concerned that politicians can be silenced or forced to reword their arguments based on the fact-checkers opinions about biases or fallacies.

Facts are one thing because something either is or isn't a fact but everyone is biased and as for fallacies, there's a lot of leeway for interpretation. Just as you accused me of using a fallacy, who's right on that? It's dangerous because if the fact-checker is being uncharitable with people or parties he doesn't like or if he's just incompetent then that's going to be a huge problem.

I don't feel you're even trying to make a compelling argument for the education you've suggested and instead you're just saying that some form of education would be preferable for you. — Judaka

Fair enough.

For the education part of the argument, I'd add the psychological Dual Process Theory to the mix. Popularized by Daniel Kahneman it speaks of the two systems our brain is using to make decisions, where system 1 acts on impulse and system 2 acts through reflectability. Why I bring up these is because studies have shown that through experience and training you can improve the speed of system 2 which is slower and often overlooked when making decisions. The act of doing philosophy, training in philosophy can in itself improve the use and speed of system 2, reducing the biases you have when making decisions and forming conclusions.

So with education in, primarily, philosophy, you will not only give knowledge in deductive and inductive methods of dialectics, but you will also improve the use of system 2 compared to without education the overuse of system 1.

Just look at universities today, they are far from politically impartial, many are famous for their political leanings. Who teaches the licence, what kind of thinker does it produce and does it restrict the types of politicians that can be elected. — Judaka

For this objection to be valid you need to prove that universities today produce biased educated people and that they are in fact acting with those imprinted biases after education is over. The objection that universities are politically impartial is often used in a fallacious way to argue that education is broken and nothing good can come out of it or at least nothing that fits your biases about the world is taught within them. So this objection is pretty weak for arguing against the need for politics based-education of politicians.

As I've said a few times now, I just don't have any confidence in your proposals to be implemented fairly. — Judaka

Is this system fairer than how regular representative democracy system is now in most parts of the world? Why is the current system fairer? Education, in order to be a licensed decision-maker, does not mean you are less rooted in ideological opinions, but it creates better praxis of parliament and less populistic ideals. Is it fairer that by people's choice we vote in specific names into parliament, but the majority of people in parliament actually voting on decisions are people who get put there by the parties and in so doing the people have no control of those agents? Either we get people to vote on all members of parliamentary seats or we demand better praxis and knowledge of the people making decisions.

I haven't been sold on why the fact-checker is necessary and I am concerned that politicians can be silenced or forced to reword their arguments based on the fact-checkers opinions about biases or fallacies. — Judaka

In what way would a fact-checker be biased or have fallacies? The fact-checkers only purpose is to spot factual errors, fallacies and biases. If the fact-checker points out a bias that isn't a bias, a fallacy that isn't a fallacy or corrects on facts with their own factual errors, those things can be objected against. You could also object that the fact-checker didn't spot a bias or fallacy in someone else's argument. But we already have a speaker seat in parliament and that speaker has the job to be unbiased and impartial to the debates in parliament. This is extending the toolset to improve the quality of debates.

To say that it can lead to silencing politicians is to do a slippery slope and in so too simplified as an objection to the praxis of this parliament position.

Just as you accused me of using a fallacy, who's right on that? It's dangerous because if the fact-checker is being uncharitable with people or parties he doesn't like or if he's just incompetent then that's going to be a huge problem. — Judaka

Let's take that last fallacy as an example. How do I conclude that it is? You say that the fact-checker leads to silencing? Wouldn't that also be the same if you apply it to the speakers role in parliament today? What is the difference? Why does the fact-checker lead to silencing and how do you conclude this without jumping to the conclusion that the fact-checker has power beyond their actual role? And ignoring any possibility of objection to the fact-checker if they conduct a weak support for calling out a fallacy or bias. You assume absolute power to fit your conclusion that they will have so over politicians debating, but there's no premise that says they have absolute power so saying "it leads to silencing" and unfair practice based on the fact-checkers biases becomes a slippery slope fallacy. If you examine your own counter-argument right here, isn't it clearly a fallacy in your reasoning?

Fallacies and biases are pretty straight forward in their meaning and spotting these help to fine-tune a dialectic past emotional opinions and system 1 type arguments. If the fact-checker is incompetent, that will instantly show when he is unable to underline why something is a fallacy or a bias. Malpractice or incompetence leads to termination of that position, just like if a doctor is incompetent they won't be able to continue practice medicine.

Your counter-arguments assumes a lot of extremes that either already should exist within parliaments right now or they are deliberate simplifications of my premises.

Yes, this is the philosophy degree -> better politician determinism I asked about before. You've obviously derived this ab initio from the superiority of philosophy that you perceive, and I don't deny that philosophy teaches good things like scepticism. I do deny that the output of that is good sceptics or good politicians, in the same way that a medical degree is not a thing that generally yields good gynaecologists. — Kenosha Kid

Skepticism is only part of it and I'll quote what I wrote about the psychological aspect.

For the education part of the argument, I'd add the psychological Dual Process Theory to the mix. Popularized by Daniel Kahneman it speaks of the two systems our brain is using to make decisions, where system 1 acts on impulse and system 2 acts through reflectability. Why I bring up these is because studies have shown that through experience and training you can improve the speed of system 2 which is slower and often overlooked when making decisions. The act of doing philosophy, training in philosophy can in itself improve the use and speed of system 2, reducing the biases you have when making decisions and forming conclusions.

So with education in, primarily, philosophy, you will not only give knowledge in deductive and inductive methods of dialectics, but you will also improve the use of system 2 compared to without education the overuse of system 1. — Christoffer

For this objection to be valid you need to prove that universities today produce biased educated people and that they are in fact acting with those imprinted biases after education is over. The objection that universities are politically impartial is often used in a fallacious way to argue that education is broken and nothing good can come out of it or at least nothing that fits your biases about the world is taught within them. So this objection is pretty weak for arguing against the need for politics based-education of politicians. — Christoffer

Universities don't try to ensure equal representation in their courses or of their lecturers in political persuasions, why wouldn't there be an imbalance? Universities have always been involved in politics and university students have always been interested in politics. Especially in the arts where people are encouraged to think about these kinds of ideas. I don't want to respond to your obsession with fallacies that have nothing to do with what I said.

Is this system fairer than how regular representative democracy system is now in most parts of the world? — Christoffer

It's barely different, barely addresses any of the problems and you don't take any of the potential problems it could cause seriously. Populism works not because of politicians but because of voters, I don't know how much of an issue populism is. Populism comes about because people feel disenfranchised and failed by democracy in the first place.

In what way would a fact-checker be biased or have fallacies? — Christoffer

Aren't you just being silly at this point? Your following counterarguments are, who are you even talking to? I never made a slippery slope argument but I'm sure your biases have nothing to do with your conclusion that I did.

As for your objections about the fact-checker, I never made any assumptions, I have simply not received an adequate explanation around the specifics of how the fact-checker system would operate. I have given different scenarios and questioned how they might work. I never assumed what kind of authority the fact-checker might have, I have always said "if he has this level of authority then.." and so on.

I think you're just being silly, you have regularly argued that my arguments are fallacious but you don't see the topic as being controversial. You don't see the potential for abuse or bias. You've put me in a quite a difficult position. I don't really want to debate this topic anymore, let's end things here.

Universities don't try to ensure equal representation in their courses or of their lecturers in political persuasions, why wouldn't there be an imbalance? Universities have always been involved in politics and university students have always been interested in politics. Especially in the arts where people are encouraged to think about these kinds of ideas. I don't want to respond to your obsession with fallacies that have nothing to do with what I said. — Judaka

So in what way is the current system better than what I propose? In what way do you mean that their education, in terms of primarily economics and philosophy would lead to political biases? What kind of biases are you talking about here? Out of the proposed risk of universities having imbalanced representation, how can you conclude the amount at which current universities have imbalanced representation and to which amount it changes the outcome of their education, and specifically the outcome within the areas of education I proposed?

So far you seem to argue: "some universities have an imbalance in political positions, therefore politician education distorts the neutrality of parliament."
Disregarding the fact that people don't get a politician license after learning a political ideology, but instead, already have a foundational ideology. The education isn't there to reprogram and even if there was a political imbalance at the university, that doesn't change the education taught in these areas of knowledge. Students can today absolutely call out if the knowledge taught has a political bias instead of neutrality and if they have a specific political ideology, the education won't interfere with that.

You still need to prove the correlation between university political imbalance to the education taught and the consequences of that education. The objection can't just be "Some universities have political imbalance - Therefore a political license will be biased".

It's barely different, barely addresses any of the problems and you don't take any of the potential problems it could cause seriously. Populism works not because of politicians but because of voters, I don't know how much of an issue populism is. Populism comes about because people feel disenfranchised and failed by democracy in the first place. — Judaka

By saying it's barley different you effectively straw man the entire idea or ignore portions of my argument, like the Dual Process effect on parliamentary members. And the problems you raise are still too weak and closer to slippery slope ideas of the consequences.

Populism may have been the wrong wording here as, like you say, it has more to do with the people than politicians. What I mean is demagogical politicians and the populist result among the people. Epistemic Democracy helps reduce the demagogical nature of today's representative democracies.

Essentially,

At the moment, demagogical politics is all over nations like Britain and US. A change in political praxis and higher dialectic quality is needed to combat these things from happening. The challenge is to change it without blocking democratic voices in society, meaning, the risk of an elite or specific ideology taking over. While there are many changes that can be done to the representative democracy that exists today, my thesis is that we need to change some fundamental parts of how representative democracy works in order to reduce demagogical politics from rising and populism taking over public discourse.

You bring up fallacy arguments so much lol. Most of your responses are really just you theorising about the ways in which you think my arguments might go without actually finding that out first.

Disregarding the fact that people don't get a politician license after learning a political ideology, but instead, already have a foundational ideology. The education isn't there to reprogram and even if there was a political imbalance at the university, that doesn't change the education taught in these areas of knowledge — Christoffer

Was this my argument? That fact is only important to you, why should I care?

Students can today absolutely call out if the knowledge taught has a political bias instead of neutrality and if they have a specific political ideology, the education won't interfere with that. — Christoffer

It's not even just about the "knowledge taught", even if the classes were totally apolitical. When you say political candidates must spend 3-6 years at a university and universities aren't apolitical places, it has an impact on the candidates. The spread of communism and its relationship with universities is extensive, that's half of the story of the 20th-century spread of communism. Look at Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Lenin and many others. The point here isn't to say "US will become communist if political licence" but that you cannot treat universities as being apolitical.

By saying it's barley different you effectively straw man the entire idea or ignore portions of my argument, like the Dual Process effect on parliamentary members. And the problems you raise are still too weak and closer to slippery slope ideas of the consequences. — Christoffer

STRAW MAN? I've written like 2k words on your thread, you know what I think about the individual components which have all been addressed. I haven't made any slippery slope arguments.

I am done, please stop replying to me.

You bring up fallacy arguments so much lol. Most of your responses are really just you theorising about the ways in which you think my arguments might go without actually finding that out first. — Judaka

That's why I ask for clarification since you don't give one, all I have is the outlines of your objections.

Was this my argument? That fact is only important to you, why should I care? — Judaka

You connect political imbalance within universities to form a conclusion that it would create biased politicians. If that is not the case, what is your point with universities' political imbalance? Clarify

It's not even just about the "knowledge taught", even if the classes were totally apolitical. When you say political candidates must spend 3-6 years at a university and universities aren't apolitical places, it has an impact on the candidates. — Judaka

And we still have educated people on all sides of politics, what evidence do you have that education at universities produces a shift in political ideology? How can you differentiate that to normal ideological shifts in society at the same time? That university has an impact on candidates outside of the education itself is true because it's true throughout the life of a person to change according to the environment. But you are very specific about what type of change we are talking about so you need to prove that with much better scrutiny.

That people change is not the same as change in a way negative to one's initial ideology. And even if someone changes ideologically, how do you know that is because of the university outside of education and not out of the reason more knowledge puts more perspective on political questions? If the latter, that is a good outcome for the individual. Having more perspective gives better insight in the good and bad of each ideological position you can be in.

The spread of communism and its relationship with universities is extensive, that's half of the story of the 20th-century spread of communism. Look at Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, Lenin and many others. The point here isn't to say "US will become communist if political licence" but that you cannot treat universities as being apolitical. — Judaka

How is this in any way linked to what I'm proposing? How is this not a Reductio ad absurdum? Or guilt by association through the fact that they had universities and so do we, therefore extreme consequence?

This is in no way evidence for negative consequences of a politician education and license. Why would this be in any difference to how doctors go through medical education? Would that result in them being politically biased towards health care and practice? What about lawyers and law school? There are plenty of areas of expertise that require neutrality.

This objection just sounds like fearing ideological indoctrination rather than a sound critique of the required education to practice parliamentary duties. You have to prove actual consequences outside of historical accounts that really has little to do with solely university reasons alone for their rise.

The irony here is that it seems your argument has more ideological reasons than rational ones. The example of the rise of communism in universities, without nuance to the fact that there was more happening in society than just what happened in those universities, and the fact that your entire line of logic here is: [The old rise of communism was because communism in universities] > [Universities are not good for learning]

What if the education was part of the state instead and separated from any faculty or candidates of current universities and that these universities focus entirely on the education of politicians? With clear standards for education guidelines and review of political neutrality. Would that be better? Since I'm proposing a fundamental change in democratic practice it could easily be a part of that change.

STRAW MAN? I've written like 2k words on your thread, you know what I think about the individual components which have all been addressed. I haven't made any slippery slope arguments. — Judaka

Still, you sum up my premise about education to be bad because it produces indoctrinated politicians because communism started in universities. I ask for clear evidence for any indoctrinated ideologies as consequences in people who went to universities, but all you do is point to the rise of communism as if that proves against the need for education.

Writing 2k words that repeat the same objections without deeper clarifications and inclusion of futher points mean little if it doesn't clearly prove my points wrong here. Assumptions and fearmongering communism are not valid support of the objections you've made. That is why this keeps going.

I am done, please stop replying to me. — Judaka

You only have the choice of not continuing the discussion, not that your objections are the final words of a discussion.

But you are very specific about what type of change we are talking about so you need to prove that with much better scrutiny. — Christoffer

Am I? I don't think I have been very specific and my argument isn't very specific. Currently, the requirements to run for office are age, nationality etc and you want to add something very substantial to that. You have unsurprisingly, absurdly, taken my example to be utilising the shock value of communism. Communism is just a big, easily identifiable example of how university culture influenced future politicians. It just proves that I'm not baselessly speculating, we have examples. You say you want proof but I'm not sure that exists, it's a nearly impossible thing to prove. We don't record what your political positions were before and after taking a course at a university. We can only note that universities are not apolitical.

You ask "what evidence do you have that it can produce ideological shifts" but within communism you have clear examples of world-famous communist leaders who picked up their ideological leanings at university. It did produce ideological shifts in those people, if you forced future leaders to go to universities which debate political theories such as communism then it increases the likelihood of them being influenced by those theories. That's assuming the course itself is entirely apolitical which hasn't been established. If you won't accept that without some kind of concrete evidence then go look for it yourself, don't need to rely on me. I am not really sure what you'd be hoping to find.

It is not the nail in the coffin for your suggestions and honestly, I am not really trying to prove anything. I asked how things would work, pointed out problems I saw and I'm not looking for any particular resolution. It makes no difference for you whether I agree or not and that's how I view things too.

You just continually put words in my mouth like "

The old rise of communism was because communism in universities] > [Universities are not good for learning] — Christoffer

. Really, that's my "line of logic"? But I never said anything like that. Isn't that what we call a strawman?

Still, you sum up my premise about education to be bad because it produces indoctrinated politicians because communism started in universities — Christoffer

More of the same strawman, that is absolutely not what I said, not even close to what I said. It's an outrageous interpretation of my argument. I'm not fearmongering communism and I even went out of my way to specify as such.

Fair enough though, I will stop asking you to not reply, you can have your final word but I don't think this conversation is going anywhere. The fact that we're waist-deep in accusations of fallacies at this point really highlights where my concerns came from to begin with. There's a lot left unaddressed between us but I do not feel that I can trust you to interpret my arguments in a fair manner. You choose instead to put words in my mouth and interpret my arguments in ways that undermine them, so I will not respond to whatever you may comment further.

You say you want proof but I'm not sure that exists, it's a nearly impossible thing to prove. We don't record what your political positions were before and after taking a course at a university. We can only note that universities are not apolitical. — Judaka

So, how is your objection then valid? The example of communism ignores everything else that went on with society, but pretty much blames the rise of it on universities' lack of neutrality. So you first don't have a clear example and no evidence of there even being ideological shifts between first and last year of candidates.

So how is this objection really of quality value?

You ask "what evidence do you have that it can produce ideological shifts" but within communism you have clear examples of world-famous communist leaders who picked up their ideological leanings at university. — Judaka

Ignoring everything else that went down during these times, communism or rather marxism was a radical theory at the time and it was applied to something that didn't even match up with what Marx and Engels talked about. All these people tried to force marxism into system when Marx and Engels proposed them to be a consequence of capitalism. The theories were popular because they were part of the discourse, not some ideological indoctrination thing happening outside of the lecture halls as you put this forward.

So how is these historical events evidence for how universities function today and in what way do it even remotely affect the idea of politician education and license? The link is very thin here and I'm asking for a little better clarification of what the actual consequences would be for the licensed politicians in the end.

if you forced future leaders to go to universities which debate political theories such as communism then it increases the likelihood of them being influenced by those theories. — Judaka

So, if you have a balanced education that neutrally goes through capitalism and marxism there's a risk that some of them find marxism intriguing?

Do you realize what you are actually saying here? That it's better that we keep people in the dark about political theories because if people learn about all of that they might find some ideas that are considered taboo in this neoliberal world we currently live in to be more interesting than the status quo. Seriously?

Bring all knowledge, all theories and facts into light, discuss them critically and if that leads to some educated people finding something more aligned with themselves than what they believed before that knowledge, that is not the kind of indoctrination you are talking about and that is nothing but anti-intellectualism out of fearmongering the left and marxism.

It is not the nail in the coffin for your suggestions and honestly I am not really trying to prove anything. — Judaka

The nail in the coffin is that when people learn knowledge about political theories they might learn marxism and therefore it leads to communist takeover? You object by specifically point out that people might learn some, in your opinion, "bad knowledge" that could change how they view the world after education.

Knowledge is knowledge. I could argue that knowledge is always better than no knowledge.

p1 Broad knowledge always leads to more informed conclusions.
p2 Informed conclusions always lead to a higher probability of positive outcomes than uninformed ones.

Therefore, broad knowledge is always better than no knowledge when making conclusions and taking decisions.

How does that fit with the comparison of politicians today and the ones in epistemic democracy? Politicians today can be uneducated and have very little knowledge while practicing parliamentary actions. How is that better than them also having a politician education as a foundation? Because they risk learning something in university that they might like? And because of that risk, it's the nail in coffin of the idea of education for politicians?

How about the current practice of representative democracy? Where we can have neo-nazis dressed in suits taking power because they were indoctrinated into that by the alt-right and there are nothing to prevent uneducated ideas to infiltrate parliament? How is the risk of influence as it is now better than how it would be if we risk getting influenced by having more and broader knowledge of political ideas, ideologies and theories?

You must explain why learning more about political theory and ideologies risks indoctrinating into bad politics while at the same time point out how the current system is better keeping bad politics out of power when the logic of knowledge points to the contrary?

Otherwise, the only thing I can see you making an argument for is that people shouldn't learn stuff about political theories because that can lead to them liking something else than they previously did.

How is that logical as an objection against epistemic democracy in any way? It's more of an argument for anti-intellectualism.

Really, that's my "line of logic"? But I never said anything like that. Isn't that what we call a strawman? — Judaka

Tu quoquo. You explained your logic behind it, but it still doesn't hold up. Previously I had to guess, that is not equal to a strawman.

It's an outrageous interpretation of my argument. I'm not fearmongering communism and I even went out of my way to specify as such. — Judaka

But they might learn about communism in their education and therefore bad politicians? Circling back to your nail in the coffin. So I take back my guess about your conclusion, because it's not fearmongering the left, it's fearmongering the idea of education as education can lead to knowledge that is considered "bad".

There is no "bad knowledge", there's only knowledge. "Bad knowledge" is essentially biased ideas and biased ideas are a feature much closer to the uneducated than the educated. Epistemic democracy is much lower in risking bad politics entering parliament than the opposite, just through logic alone.

You choose instead to put words in my mouth and interpret my arguments in ways that undermine them, so I will not respond to whatever you may comment further. — Judaka

No, I'm scrutinizing your objections in order to see if there's any valid criticism that has any sound foundation, but so far I haven't remotely been convinced by the reasoning you give here. That's what philosophy is. You can't just say an opinion that is ill-supported with fallacious arguments about how people might learn "too much" during their education and risk learning stuff like communism and therefore conclude that epistemic democracy is bad or worse than the status quo. It's surface-level opinion in the same class as the infamous Michael Gove quote that the people have "had enough of experts".

I've had enough of demagogues in politics.