进入21世纪后，慎议民主的发展速度放缓。一方面是其理论的问题，虽然参与讨论的理论家很多，但整体来说，理论琐碎，存在每个理论家“东一嘴，西一句”的问题，没有确定的发展方向，而是朝着各个方向发展。方向在扩展，但每个方向的深度都不够，且没有哪个方向形成一个完整和融贯的理论体系，甚至将各个方向聚合在一起也没有完整和融贯的体系，因为其中的不同方向之间，存在理念相悖的情况。另一个是现实可行性问题，有一部分理论家认为慎议的理论已经够了，应该考虑更实质的将其现实化，但其现实化遇到种种障碍和质疑，使得人们犹豫其有没有现实化的必要。

本文将尝试对这两个问题做出回答，对于第一个问题，作者认为学者们可做的有两件事，第一件是找到自己感兴趣的方向，然后在研究的过程中推进这个方向，第二件是在被某个方向的慎议民主的理念吸引后，在研究后，发现其有问题，则可批驳此方向是否有继续发展的必要。总体来说，面对繁复的各种方向，去伪存真，寻找站得住脚的慎议民主理论。本文并不乐观的认为，一定能找到，但可以尝试寻找。具体来说，本文就评估了其中一种方向——认识论的慎议民主是否是可行的。从两点来说，笔者认为不是那么合适，第一，在合法性的问题上，慎议民主的合法性建立在过程上，所以没必要因为合法性而强调认识论转向。第二是政治事务本身的问题，它部分相关真理，部分相关伦理，因此，从整体的角度来说，可能不需要完全转向认识论。

第二个问题，本文的回答是慎议是不是现实可行的，现实的去实验或许答案会更清晰。公共讨论会出现各种各样的情景，现实中慎议如果希望以比较好的形式进行，则需要一些规范和引导，由此避免各种恶性慎议或集体无理性。哲学可以做出一些或各种类型的规范，而怎样的规范是好的或合适的，可能就需要实验科学来验证了。实验科学可以挑一些好的慎议模型，然后实验其可行性。

本文的密集论证群有五个，四个话题论辩，一个数理逻辑论证。第一个关于民主合法性、第二个是慎议的现实化，第三个是程序正义与实体正义，第四个是认识论转向是否可取。数理逻辑论证指的是社会选择理论那部分的数理简单推导。

Deliberative democracy is a central topic in contemporary theory of Democracy.It is attractive because it appeals to the ideals of Reason and Communication. The term "Deliberation" could be traced back to Aristotle’work.In the context of deliberative democracy, deliberation refers to "Public Deliberation",which Habermas calls the free exchange of reason among equals.

Although the idea of deliberative democracy seemed perfect, its progress has been relatively slow in the 21st century.For one thing, it has the theoretical dilemma.The theories are numerous and trivial.Deliberative democracy comes in many varieties and directions,but the development of any direction is not impressive and profound, and has not formed a complete and integrated system.even if they are combined together, there is also no complete and coherent system, and even the directions are contradictory.The other is the problem of its feasibility. Some theorists argue that there is enough theory of deliberative democracy and should consider the more substantial problem -its feasibility. However, the feasibility of deliberative democracy has encountered various obstacles and doubts, which makes people hesitate whether it is necessary to make it come ture.

The paper will try to answer these two question.To answer the first question, I think scholars can do two things. The first thing is to find the direction you are interested in and then push that direction in the course of your research.The second thing is that after being attracted to the idea of deliberative democracy in a certain direction, after studying it and finding problems with it, one can argue whether it is necessary to continue to develop in this direction.In general, in the face of various complicated directions, we should remove the false theory and keep the real theory, and find a reasonable theory of deliberative democracy.The paper is not optimistic that such a theory will be found, but we should try this thing.Specifically, this paper assesses one of these directions：whether the epistemic turn to deliberative democracy is appropriate.I offer two arguments for why the epistemic turn is not appropriate. The first argument is that in the theory of deliberative democracy, legitimacy is based on the process of public discussion rather than the outcome. So there is no need to turn to epistemological deliberative democracy because of the question of legitimacy.The second argument is that the nature of political affairs makes an epistemic turn inappropriate.It partly involves truth and partly ethics.Therefore, from the perspective of the whole, the epistemic turn is not very reasonable.

The second question is whether deliberative democracy is realistic and feasible.I think that realistic experimentation may be the way to get the answer.A variety of possibilities arose from public discussions. So, in reality, we need some stipulations and guidance to make sure that deliberation could proceed in a good way，so that we avoid distorted deliberation and the                                                appearance of collective irrationality.philosophy can propose some rules and requirements. And what kind of norms are good or appropriate, may need experimental science to verify. Experimental science can pick some good models of public deliberation and test the feasibility of them.

There are five intensive argumentation processes in the paper. Four of them are thematic debate and one is mathematical logic deduction.The first debate revolves around the question of democratic legitimacy.The second is the debate about the feasibility of the deliberation.The third group of arguments is about whether procedural justice and substantive justice are contradictory. A fourth group of arguments concerns the question of whether the epistemic turn to deliberative democracy is appropriate. Mathematical logic argument refers to the simple mathematical derivation process in the section on social choice theory.