Climate science advice and values: a case study of the pragmatic-enlightened model and the IPCC

Abstract

The argument from inductive risk holds that scientists must weigh the possible consequences of being wrong in their assessment of a hypothesis. This weighing allows for non-epistemic value judgements to enter into science. The so-called ‘pragmatic-enlightened model’ of science advising acknowledges the argument from inductive risk, and tries to avoid its implications by deferring the final responsibility in policy choice from scientists to policy makers, who get the option to pick from alternatives. This does not work for two main reasons, the first being complexity, and the second being the value-ladenness of each decision made. I argue that looking towards empirical studies on stakeholder participation can help fix some of the issues that the pragmatic-enlightened model faces.