We’re brought up on the principle of democracy—one person, one vote.
We’re also brought up on the importance of knowledge: “If you think knowledge is expensive, try ignorance” (to paraphrase Derek Bok).
But what about when these two meet in opposition?
What should happen when someone in the room has the knowledge and other people have the votes, or most of the votes?
Who and what should prevail?
If, to the best of your knowledge, you believe you have a deeper understanding of something, should you assert your view over others? Can you even do that in a democratic structure?
If you believe someone else has the wisdom in the case, are you ready to concede?
And if it isn’t clear, then what?
How do you balance advocacy and enquiry in your relationships?
How can knowledge and democracy best be reconciled?