The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Democracy and Disagreement
Abstract
Abstract. According to Popper's critical rationalism, the possibility of disagreement is at the heart of open societies. If this is assumed to be true, is it not illiberal to try to justify principles of justice, which can be regarded as the subject of an unending collective deliberation? I suggest that it is not, using an analogy with scientific progress. Moreover, I try to show that Rawls's achievement is misunderstood if one forgets that it is supposed to overcome the antinomy between “la liberté des Modemes” and “la liberté des Anciens.” In this respect, I insist on some unnoticed similarities between Rawls's and Popper's points of views. I conclude on the idea of the “neutrality” of the theory of justice, suggesting a link between Rawls's approach and the French republican tradition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00950.x · Cited by 2,131
Does Disagreement Contribute to More Deliberative Opinion?
Price, V., Cappella, J. N., & Nir, L. (2002) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/105846002317246506 · Cited by 441
Organizing consent: The role of procedural fairness in political trust and compliance
Grimes, M. (2006) · European Journal of Political Research · doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00299.x · Cited by 224
General purpose computer-assisted clustering and conceptualization
Grimmer, J., & King, G. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1018067108 · Cited by 179
Fairness, accountability for reasonableness, and the views of priority setting decision-makers
Martin, D. K., Giacomini, M., & Singer, P. A. (2002) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00237-8 · Cited by 139
Metadata
- Authors
- BOYER, A.
- Venue
- Ratio Juris
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-8
- ISSN
- 0952-1917 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9337
- OpenAlex
- W2107856676
- Cited by
- 1,201
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Democracy and Disagreement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1995.tb00192.x
- The paper
- BOYER, A. (1995). Democracy and Disagreement. Ratio Juris. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.1995.tb00192.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
