1887
Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

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.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18040.and
2019-09-25
2019-10-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alexander, W. J. R. and F. Bailey
    2007 “Solar activity and climate change – a summary.” Energy & Environment18(6): 801–804. 10.1260/095830507782088749
    https://doi.org/10.1260/095830507782088749 [Google Scholar]
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Association for the Advancement of Science 2014What we know. The reality, risks, and response to climate change. Available online atwhatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Andone, C.
    2015 “Pragmatic argumentation in European practices of political accountability.” Argumentation29(1): 1–18. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9334‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9334-2 [Google Scholar]
  4. Andresen, S.
    2014 “The role of scientific expertise in multilateral environmental agreements: influence and effectiveness.” InThe 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. 10.1017/CBO9781139871365.008
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139871365.008 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boswell, C.
    2008 The political function of expert knowledge: knowledge and legitimation in European Union immigration policy. Journal of European Public Policy15(4): 471–488. 10.1080/13501760801996634
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760801996634 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2012The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge. Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bovens, M.
    2006 Analysing and assessing accountability: A conceptual framework. European Law Journal13(4): 447–468. 10.1111/j.1468‑0386.2007.00378.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0386.2007.00378.x [Google Scholar]
  8. Bromell, D.
    2017The Art and Craft of Policy Advising. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑52494‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52494-8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cartlidge, E.
    2015Why Italian earthquake scientists were exonerated. Available online athttps://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/why-italian-earthquake-scientists-were-exonerated. 10.1126/science.aaa7841
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa7841 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cummings, L.
    2010Rethinking the BSE Crisis. A Study of Scientific Reasoning under Uncertainty. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, F. van
    2016 Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation30(1): 1–23. 10.1007/s10503‑015‑9377‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9377-z [Google Scholar]
  12. Eemeren, F. van and R. Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fischlin, A.
    2017 “Background and role of science.” InThe 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]
  14. Goldman, A.
    2001 Experts: Which ones should you trust?Philosophy and Phenomenological Research63(1): 85–110. 10.1111/j.1933‑1592.2001.tb00093.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2001.tb00093.x [Google Scholar]
  15. Hajer, M. A.
    2009Authoritative Governance: Policy-Making in the Age of Mediatization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281671.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281671.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Heinrichs, H.
    2005 “Advisory systems in pluralistic knowledge societies: A criteria-based typology to assess and optimize environmental policy advice.” InDemocratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, ed. by Maasen, S. and P. Weingart , 41–61. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 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 Planning41(5): 1185–1200. 10.1068/a40266
    https://doi.org/10.1068/a40266 [Google Scholar]
  18. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2011Appendix B to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. Financial procedures for the intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC). Available online atwww.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work. Procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports. Available online atwww.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_procedures.shtml
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014Climate Change 2014. Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Summary for policymakers. Available online atwww.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Klabbers, J.
    2014 “The virtues of expertise.” InThe 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. 10.1017/CBO9781139871365.006
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139871365.006 [Google Scholar]
  22. Litfin, K.
    2000 Environment, wealth, and authority: Global climate change and emerging modes of legitimation. International Studies Review2(2): 119–148. 10.1111/1521‑9488.00207
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00207 [Google Scholar]
  23. Maasen, S. and P. Weingart
    2005 “What’s new in scientific advice to politics?” InDemocratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, ed. by Maasen, S. and P. Weingart , 1–20. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Majone, G.
    1989Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Millstone, E.
    2013 “Science and decision-making: Can we both distinguish and reconcile science and politics.” InTrade, 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]
  26. Mulgan, R.
    2003Holding Power to Account. Accountability in Modern Democracies. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781403943835
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403943835 [Google Scholar]
  27. Radaelli, C. M.
    1999 “The public policy of the European Union: whither politics of expertise?” Journal of European Public Policy6(5): 757–74. 10.1080/135017699343360
    https://doi.org/10.1080/135017699343360 [Google Scholar]
  28. Schrefler, L.
    2014 “Reflections on the different roles of expertise in regulatory policy making.” InThe 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. 10.1017/CBO9781139871365.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139871365.005 [Google Scholar]
  29. 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.” InBetween 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]
  30. Stone, D.
    2001 “Getting research into policy”. Paper presented at theGlobal Development Network, Rio de Janeiro, December 2001. Available online atreut-institute.org/data/uploads/Articles%20and%20Reports%20from%20other%20organizations/20080225%20-Getting%20research%20into%20Policy.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Turner, S.
    2005 “Expertise and political responsibility.” InDemocratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making, ed. by Maasen, S. and P. Weingart , 101–121. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. United Nations
    United Nations 2016Paris Agreement. Paris: United Nations Treaty Collection. Available online athttps://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-d&chapter=27&lang=_en&clang=_en
    [Google Scholar]
  33. United Nations
    United Nations 1992United Nations Convention on Climate Change. Available online athttps://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Walton, D. N.
    1997Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority. The Pennsylvania State University Press: University Park, PA.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Weiss, C. H.
    1979 “The many meanings of research utilization.” Public Administration Review39(5): 426–431. 10.2307/3109916
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3109916 [Google Scholar]
  36. Williams, M.
    2011Scientists on trial for not warning about earthquake. Available online athttps://www.pri.org/stories/2011-09-21/scientists-trial-not-warning-about-earthquake
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.18040.and
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): burden of proof , policy-making , pragmatic argumentation and scientific arguments
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error