Browsing by Author "Irvine, Andrew D."

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    SIPP Policy Dialogue Number 15 Spring 2007
    (Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, 2007) Leeson, Howard; Marchildon, Gregory P.; Elliott, Patricia W.; Larsen, Ken; Whyte, John D.; Irvine, Andrew D.; Marshall, Jim; Kumar, Malreddy Pavan; Wiseman, Nelson; Burch, Fred; Chartrand, Paul; Peach, Ian
    Welcome to the latest issue of SIPP’s Policy Dialogue. We have always sought to foster public policy debate on a variety of issues and I am pleased that, in the case of two of our articles, that dialogue is happening within the pages of our newsletter. Such interaction is a part of our mandate we take very seriously at the Institute, so I would encourage all of our readers to think about contributing thoughtful articles on issues that interest you to future Policy Dialogues. After all, if it interests you, it likely interests others as well.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    SIPP Policy Dialogue Number 17 Winter 2008
    (Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy, 2008) Whyte, John D.; Irvine, Andrew D.; Smith, David E.; Elliott, Patricia W.; Albritton, William L.; Schwartz, Sheldon; Bonli, Rupal; Marchildon, Gregory P.; Diaz, Polo; Sauchyn, Dave; Lapp, Susan; Hurlbert, Margot; Cameron, Dan
    The title of this periodical is Policy Dialogue. It could just as easily have been Policy Debate but that would have been inconsistent with the purpose and spirit of this publication. Debate is, generally, a zero-sum game. The purpose of debate is to win the argument on its merit – the evidence produced and the logic – and the style of presentation including the points you can score off your opponent, humorously or otherwise. It is stylized combat with little quarter given to your opponent or your opponent’s argument and assumptions. At its best, debate can produce new arguments and new ways of seeing existing problems but, at its worst, debate encourages evidence to be exaggerated and the truth twisted. At its most boring, debate simply raises old arguments in the same old ways. For all of these reasons, policy debate often generates more heat than light. You don’t have to look far to see examples of this, including the current debate over climate change, the subject of four of the essays in this issue of Policy Dialogue.