I’ve enjoyed good success with Deborah Stone’s The Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. It’s the main text for my “Theory and Practice of Environmental Policymaking” seminar. The book dissects the limitations of the ‘rationality project’ in applied policymaking and illustrates how divergent understandings of efficiency, equity, welfare, security, and liberty inevitability produce policy outcomes driven more by values and politics than fact and logic.
The book isn’t the pithy treatment that you’re looking for, but perhaps the summary tables in the early chapters will prove helpful. Best to all, Michael From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John M. Meyer Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 6:32 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Ronald Mitchell; Beth DeSombre; GEP-Ed List Subject: Re: [gep-ed] Responses to Neil deGrasse Tyson? For a short, direct response to Tyson, here's Dave Roberts: http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064540/3-questions-for-neil-degrasse-tyson Also, I think Mike Hulme's work (Why we disagree about climate change; why we still disagree about climate change) is valuable on this score. Best, John On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 12:37 PM, Max Boykoff <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Beth, Ron and all, I suggest Andrew Hoffman's 2015 book "How Culture Shapes the Climate Change Debate" http://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=25621 It is specific to climate change but there are transferable insights to associated science and environment issues. I've just used it in my summer undergraduate course with success: it is approachable (and short). Cheers, max --- Associate Professor, Environmental Studies, University of Colorado-Boulder Fellow, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) Director, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (CSTPR) Deputy Editor, Climatic Change @boykoff ~ http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/boykoff/ On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:10 AM, Ronald Mitchell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I don’t have a reading but I have an exercise that I think works pretty > well. I think of it as best to think of the distinction between faith, > opinion, and knowledge. Its here but also attached. > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > PS367: Climate Change: Science and Politics of a Global Crisis > > © Prof. Ronald Mitchell, 2016 > Department of Political Science and Program in Environmental Studies > > > > > > Assignment 3 Essay (submit online): “Different things we believe” (10%) > > Write a 1,000 word essay explaining what differences, if any, you see in the > use of the word “believe” in the following three sentences (choose whichever > term in each of the 3 underlined pairs best fits your beliefs). > > n I believe that there is/is not a God. > > n I believe that American government will work better if > Republicans/Democrats win the next election. > > n I believe that human-caused climate change is/is not already occurring. > > This assignment involves careful thought but NOT a response to the readings. > The goal is to get you thinking about how our beliefs about religion, about > politics, and about science differ. Bring in good ideas on these subjects! > > I prefer that your essay NOT tell me which of the underlined pairs you > believe! Instead, write out your answers to yourself and then think about > those answers to write an essay about the ways in which faith, opinion, and > knowledge differ. How strong are your beliefs in each of these areas? On > what basis have you come to hold your beliefs in each area? Are your beliefs > in each area susceptible to change in response to data and evidence and, if > so, to what kinds of data and evidence? Are your beliefs in each area > susceptible to arguments by others? What do differences among these types of > beliefs mean for political discourse? The goal is to use some time spent > thinking about your own experience to help you develop an essay which is > about how faith/opinion/knowledge differ more generally for everybody. > > ------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of > Beth DeSombre > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 7:51 AM > To: GEP-Ed List <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [gep-ed] Responses to Neil deGrasse Tyson? > > > > Hi folks: > > > > If you saw Tyson's tweet yesterday about creating the country of > "rationalia" (where "all policy shall be based on the weight of > evidence")-- there have been a few interesting responses designed to poke at > the problems with his logic, like this one from vox: > http://www.vox.com/2016/6/30/12064540/3-questions-for-neil-degrasse-tyson > > > > What I'm hoping exists -- perhaps as a response, or better yet as an already > existing standalone piece -- is something that clearly articulates the > "science can't decide policy, because policy involves making actual choices > among multiple things we value and there's no "scientifically right" way to > do that." > > > > I've tried a few different readings in my undergrad course to get at that > point, but none has been successful at communicating it to my students (or > my ES colleagues!). Does anyone have a reading to suggest? > > > > Beth > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "gep-ed" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to > [email protected]<mailto:gep-ed%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "gep-ed" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to > [email protected]<mailto:gep-ed%[email protected]>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:gep-ed%[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- John M. Meyer, Professor and Chair Department of Politics<http://humboldt.edu/politics/> Humboldt State University 1 Harpst St. Arcata, CA 95521 USA 707.826.4497 (voice) [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> users.humboldt.edu/john.m.meyer<http://users.humboldt.edu/john.m.meyer> Now Available: Engaging the Everyday: Environmental Social Criticism and the Resonance Dilemma.<http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/engaging-everyday> MIT Press, 2015; Oxford Handbook of Environmental Political Theory. <http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199685271.do> Oxford, 2016. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ________________________________ Important: This email is confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify us immediately; you should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gep-ed" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
