Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in ContextVol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp.195–213
Scientific arguments in policy-making
This paper focuses on the use of scientific insights for
justifying decisions in policy-making. Because in policy-making the politician
argues for a future course of action by pointing at its positive consequences,
the burden of proof should concern not only the scientific arguments, but also
the pragmatic arguments. We show how the political justificatory process takes
place that combines the two argument types, and we propose criteria for
assessing the quality of the justifications. Based on our theoretical findings,
we provide a case-study analysis of the Paris Agreement on climate change in
which we demonstrate how the politicians attempt to meet their burden of proof
imposed by pragmatic and scientific argumentation.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Science and political decision-making
- 3.The assessment of politicians’ arguments based on science
- 4.The case of the Paris Agreement on climate change
- 5.Concluding remarks
- Notes
-
References
References (36)
Alexander, W. J. R. and F. Bailey. 2007. “Solar activity and climate change – a summary.” Energy & Environment 18(6): 801–804. 
American Association for the Advancement of Science 2014. What we know. The reality, risks, and response to climate
change. Available online at [URL]
Andone, C. 2015. “Pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political
accountability.” Argumentation 29(1): 1–18.
Andresen, S. 2014. “The role of scientific expertise in multilateral environmental
agreements: influence and effectiveness.” In The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making
Processes: Advisors, Decision-Makers or Irrelevant Actors?, ed. by M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and H. Raulus, 105–126. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Boswell, C. 2008. The political function of expert knowledge: knowledge and
legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy 15(4): 471–488.
2012. The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge. Immigration Policy and Social
Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bovens, M. 2006. Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual
framework. European Law Journal 13(4): 447–468.
Bromell, D. 2017. The Art and Craft of Policy Advising. Dordrecht: Springer.
Cartlidge, E. 2015. Why Italian earthquake scientists were exonerated. Available online at [URL].
Cummings, L. 2010. Rethinking the BSE Crisis. A Study of Scientific Reasoning under
Uncertainty. Dordrecht: Springer.
Eemeren, F. van. 2016. Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the
development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 30(1): 1–23.
Eemeren, F. van and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical
Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fischlin, A. 2017. “Background and role of science.” In The Paris Agreement on climate change: analysis and commentary, ed. by D. Klein, M. P. Carazo, M. Doelle, J. Bulmer and A. Higham, 3–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldman, A. 2001. Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 85–110.
Hajer, M. A. 2009. Authoritative Governance: Policy-Making in the Age of
Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heinrichs, H. 2005. “Advisory systems in pluralistic knowledge societies: A
criteria-based typology to assess and optimize environmental policy
advice.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice
in Political Decision-Making, ed. by Maasen, S. and P. Weingart, 41–61. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hertin, J., A. Turnpenny, M. Jordan, D. Russel Nilsson and B. Nykvist. 2009. “Rationalizing the policy mess? Ex ante policy assessment and the
utilization of knowledge in the policy process.” Environment and Planning 41(5): 1185–1200.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2011. Appendix B to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. Financial procedures
for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Available online at [URL]
. 2013. Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. Procedures for the
preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC
reports. Available online at [URL]
. 2014. Climate Change 2014. Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Summary for
policymakers. Available online at [URL]
Klabbers, J. 2014. “The virtues of expertise.” In The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making
Processes: Advisors, Decision-Makers or Irrelevant Actors?, ed. by M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and H. Raulus, 82–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Litfin, K. 2000. Environment, wealth, and authority: Global climate change and
emerging modes of legitimation. International Studies Review 2(2): 119–148.
Maasen, S. and P. Weingart. 2005. “What’s new in scientific advice to politics?” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice
in Political Decision-Making, ed. by Maasen, S. and P. Weingart, 1–20. Dordrecht: Springer.
Majone, G. 1989. Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
Millstone, E. 2013. “Science and decision-making: Can we both distinguish and
reconcile science and politics.” In Trade, Health and the Environment. The European Union Put to the
Test, ed. by M. B. A. van Asselt, M. Everson and E. Vos, 47–73. London and New York: Routledge.
Mulgan, R. 2003. Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Radaelli, C. M. 1999. “The public policy of the European Union: whither politics of
expertise?” Journal of European Public Policy 6(5): 757–74.
Schrefler, L. 2014. “Reflections on the different roles of expertise in regulatory
policy making.” In The Role of ‘Experts’ in International and European Decision-Making
Processes: Advisors, Decision-Makers or Irrelevant Actors?, ed. by M. Ambrus, K. Arts, E. Hey and H. Raulus, 63–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. and J. Wagemans. 2012. “The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in
medical discussions: institutional safeguards for the quality of shared
decision making.” In Between scientists & citizens. Proceedings of a conference at Iowa
State University, ed. by J. Goodwin, 345–354. Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Stone, D. 2001. “Getting research into policy”. Paper presented at the Global Development Network, Rio de Janeiro, December 2001. Available online at [URL]
Turner, S. 2005. “Expertise and political responsibility.” In Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice
in Political Decision-Making, ed. by Maasen, S. and P. Weingart, 101–121. Dordrecht: Springer.
United Nations 2016. Paris Agreement. Paris: United Nations Treaty Collection. Available online at [URL]
1992. United Nations Convention on Climate Change. Available online at [URL]
Walton, D. N. 1997. Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. The Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA.
Weiss, C. H. 1979. “The many meanings of research utilization.” Public Administration Review 39(5): 426–431.
Williams, M. 2011. Scientists on trial for not warning about earthquake. Available online at [URL]
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Reijven, Menno H.
Andone, Corina
Puppo, Federico, Silvia Corradi & Lorenzo Zoppellari
2022. Rhetoric and Argumentation in the Pandemic Legislation: The Italian Case. In The Pandemic of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 43], ► pp. 165 ff. 
Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 281 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.