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
References
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
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.
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
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.
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Andone, Corina
Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3 ► pp. 281 ff. 
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 may 2023. 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.