Mutual Enhancement or Missed Understanding: Democratic Deliberation and Political Responses to Scientific Arguments
(2011) STVK01 20111Department of Political Science
- Abstract
- The prominence of science in contemporary politics is remarkable. The prominence of science may however contradict democratic ideas since a potentially detrimental knowledge and power inequality exist between experts and non-experts. One suggested way of bridging the gap between the two groups is democratic deliberation which is an idea that will be considered in this study. Furthermore, scientific findings are frequently used in public policy-debates in democracies to support different positions. However, the politicians using the science presumably don’t generally possess the knowledge necessary to fully understand the science. Apart from producing scientific arguments politicians must also confront arguments. Politicians must then... (More)
- The prominence of science in contemporary politics is remarkable. The prominence of science may however contradict democratic ideas since a potentially detrimental knowledge and power inequality exist between experts and non-experts. One suggested way of bridging the gap between the two groups is democratic deliberation which is an idea that will be considered in this study. Furthermore, scientific findings are frequently used in public policy-debates in democracies to support different positions. However, the politicians using the science presumably don’t generally possess the knowledge necessary to fully understand the science. Apart from producing scientific arguments politicians must also confront arguments. Politicians must then respond to arguments they only partially understand. Against this background, possible political responses to scientific arguments are analysed. In this paper, a typology of possible responses to scientific arguments in public policy debates is developed, using theories about expert-knowledge in politics as well as political argumentation. The compatibility of these responses with democratic deliberation is then examined. The typology is reviewed against a debate regarding wolf politics in Sweden. Six types of response are identified. Their compatibility with democratic deliberation varies very much across the different types. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1968712
- author
- Paulsson, David LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- STVK01 20111
- year
- 2011
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Typology, Democratic deliberation, Expertise, Political argumentation, Public debate
- language
- English
- id
- 1968712
- date added to LUP
- 2011-06-20 14:26:29
- date last changed
- 2011-06-20 14:26:29
@misc{1968712,
abstract = {{The prominence of science in contemporary politics is remarkable. The prominence of science may however contradict democratic ideas since a potentially detrimental knowledge and power inequality exist between experts and non-experts. One suggested way of bridging the gap between the two groups is democratic deliberation which is an idea that will be considered in this study. Furthermore, scientific findings are frequently used in public policy-debates in democracies to support different positions. However, the politicians using the science presumably don’t generally possess the knowledge necessary to fully understand the science. Apart from producing scientific arguments politicians must also confront arguments. Politicians must then respond to arguments they only partially understand. Against this background, possible political responses to scientific arguments are analysed. In this paper, a typology of possible responses to scientific arguments in public policy debates is developed, using theories about expert-knowledge in politics as well as political argumentation. The compatibility of these responses with democratic deliberation is then examined. The typology is reviewed against a debate regarding wolf politics in Sweden. Six types of response are identified. Their compatibility with democratic deliberation varies very much across the different types.}},
author = {{Paulsson, David}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Mutual Enhancement or Missed Understanding: Democratic Deliberation and Political Responses to Scientific Arguments}},
year = {{2011}},
}