The Epistemic Value of Testimony

Matthew Chick

doi:10.1057/s41296-021-00496-8

Abstract

AbstractThis article brings together two sets of insights about deliberative democracy and uses them to develop a novel epistemic justification for the importance of testimony. Some democratic theorists have argued persuasively that a deliberative process limited to formal argumentation is exclusionary and thus undermines democratic legitimacy; they have made a compelling case for testimony on grounds of democratic inclusion. Others have made the case that deliberation has important epistemic benefits. Those theorists emphasize the give and take of reasons as a means to arrive at well-informed collective decisions. The author’s central claim is that there is an important epistemic value to the inclusion of testimony. It can introduce new information into the deliberative process. It can enable deliberators to grasp connections between the particular and the general. And it can invite them to imaginatively engage with the experiences of others. These epistemic benefits provide a new set of reasons for including testimony in democratic deliberation.

Highlights

In Ferguson: A Report from Occupied Territory, produced in 2015 by the Fusion Media Co., St
Louis County resident Chris Brown, Sr. describes the experience of his short daily drive to work, which exposes him to over-policing at the hands of officers from at least four different police jurisdictions: Walking out the front door nowadays you feel like because your skin is one color you’re already the bad guy...You’re the black guy, you’re the bad guy
For example, alternative testimony from citizens on the perceived disrespect felt by citizens decrying ‘‘cancel-culture’’ as new production ceases on Dr Seuss books with racist imagery, under the direction of his estate and publishing company

Summary

Introduction

In Ferguson: A Report from Occupied Territory, produced in 2015 by the Fusion Media Co., St. The prominence of testimony seems to rise around issues of marginalization and structural injustice, which might be harder to perceive otherwise. When it comes to actual democratic processes, stories like Brown’s have a tendency to be sidelined in favor of ‘‘expert’’ opinion, statistics, and other forms of empirical data. Rather than hearing from Brown, policy decisions are more likely to be based on ticketing statistics, local budgets, reports from police offices, and large-N studies on deterring traffic violations. Though, notably Iris Marion Young, have made the case for including storytelling like Brown’s and similar forms of communication in deliberative processes, on the grounds that doing so makes those processes more inclusive and thereby more legitimate; it

Objectives

Conclusion