Article published in:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 8:2 (2019) ► pp. 195–213

Scientific arguments in policy-making

| ILIAS | University of Amsterdam
| University of Amsterdam | University of Italian Switzerland, Lugano
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.
Keywords: burden of proof, policy-making, pragmatic argumentation, scientific arguments
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
Published online: 25 September 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18040.and
References

References

Alexander, W. J. R. and F. Bailey
2007 “Solar activity and climate change – a summary.” Energy & Environment 18(6): 801–804. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
American Association for the Advancement of Science
2014 What we know. The reality, risks, and response to climate change. Available online at http://​whatweknow​.aaas​.org​/get​-the​-facts/
Andone, C.
2015 “Pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability.” Argumentation 29(1): 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge. Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bovens, M.
2006 Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13(4): 447–468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bromell, D.
2017 The Art and Craft of Policy Advising. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cartlidge, E.
2015 Why Italian earthquake scientists were exonerated. Available online at https://​www​.sciencemag​.org​/news​/2015​/02​/why​-italian​-earthquake​-scientists​-were​-exonerated. Crossref
Cummings, L.
2010 Rethinking the BSE Crisis. A Study of Scientific Reasoning under Uncertainty. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. van
2016 Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 30(1): 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. van and R. Grootendorst
1992 Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Goldman, A.
2001 Experts: Which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 85–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M. A.
2009 Authoritative Governance: Policy-Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 http://​www​.ipcc​.ch​/organization​/organization​_procedures​.shtml
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 http://​www​.ipcc​.ch​/organization​/organization​_procedures​.shtml
2014 Climate Change 2014. Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Summary for policymakers. Available online at http://​www​.ipcc​.ch​/report​/ar5​/wg2/
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Litfin, K.
2000 Environment, wealth, and authority: Global climate change and emerging modes of legitimation. International Studies Review 2(2): 119–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Majone, G.
1989 Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Mulgan, R.
2003 Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radaelli, C. M.
1999 “The public policy of the European Union: whither politics of expertise?” Journal of European Public Policy 6(5): 757–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Stone, D.
2001 “Getting research into policy”. Paper presented at the Global Development Network, Rio de Janeiro, December 2001. Available online at http://​reut​-institute​.org​/data​/uploads​/Articles%20and%20Reports%20from%20other%20organizations​/20080225%20​-Getting%20research%20into%20Policy​.pdf
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 United Nations Convention on Climate Change. Available online at https://​unfccc​.int​/resource​/docs​/convkp​/conveng​.pdf
Walton, D. N.
1997 Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. The Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA.Google Scholar
Weiss, C. H.
1979 “The many meanings of research utilization.” Public Administration Review 39(5): 426–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Williams, M.
2011 Scientists on trial for not warning about earthquake. Available online at https://​www​.pri​.org​/stories​/2011​-09​-21​/scientists​-trial​-not​-warning​-about​-earthquake
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Andone, Corina
2022. Arguing through quotations. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:1 ► pp. 69 ff. Crossref logo
Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 281 ff. Crossref logo
Puppo, Federico, Silvia Corradi & Lorenzo Zoppellari
2022.  In The Pandemic of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 43], ► pp. 165 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.