ABSTRACT
Public reasoning is not only crucial for democratic legitimacy, it is essential for a better public epistemology that would allow the consideration of divergent perspectives. It is also required for more effective practical reasoning. It can bring out what particular demands and protests can be restrained in interactive public reasoning, in line with scrutinized priorities between a cluster of quite distinct demands. The first significant benefit of language, of discussion, in Adam Smith's view is therefore that it induces moderation and perhaps even something people would today refer to as tolerance. It is through language, and the exchange of approbation over time, that people come to understand what is generally approved and they try to act accordingly. In John Stuart Mill's view, all people are capable of being guided to their own improvement by conviction or persuasion: rectifying mistakes, by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone. There must be discussion, to show how experience is to be interpreted.
