Talk:Post-normal science

Justification

the justification for the presence of the citation of Turnpenny in this entry escapes me entirely. It is neither referenced above in the text, nor is it a 'classic' text on the topic, it is not a publication and the citation itself is incomplete. I have removed the citation: John Turnpenny (Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia), "What is post-normal science? A critical review of its development, definitions and usages", in: (“Post Normal Science – perspectives & prospects”, Oxford, June 26, 2009 Katy nora (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the idea http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-post-normal-science.html Twfowler 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

there is a fatal flaw in your reformulation of kuhn's ideas - the paradigm shift DOES NOT concern "science itself" - by that i mean the currently used scientific method. that could only be done using some form of meta-paradigm - which is less confusing as it sounds, because that is known as "philosophy of science"... kuhn doesnt adress methods itself, but the shifting in the view of scientists about some field of science - that COULD mean shifting it from science to pseudoscience or the other way around. the shift between einstein's determinism and schrödingers quantum-induced indeterminism is an often quotet example for a paradigm-shift. all other changes or diversifications of the currently used scientific method should be adressed as changes in the underlying philosophy (of science)! g'night... --84.129.254.38 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (get me as user:fluffythekitten in the german wikipedia ;-)

The article still needs a bit of work. Just divided in sections and did some restructuring. Deleted the "original research" tag (most concepts are published, see bibliography and external links). Deleted wikify tag after wikifing some terms. There are still some arguments and counter-arguments on "criticism" to be properly cited.- Mario J Alves (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Few mainstream scientists advocate the approaches taken by post-normal science" - this seems like a truism to me. For the concept, judging from the present state of the article alone, does not refer to doing scientific research but about implementing scientific discoveries. The last few lines, if I am not mistaken, seem to have the really salient point: "that under certain conditions, where decision stakes and/or scientific uncertainty are sufficiently high, the activity that Thomas Kuhn (see above) called normal 'puzzle solving' science is simply not possible."

To a scientist, this creates nothing but opportunities. To a politician, executive, etc, this creates nothing but problems.

The article reads as if the original proposal is concerned with how scientific research is conducted (at least not in the "hard" sciences). But it seems that the concept actually deals with science-based decisionmaking.

Global warming is just one example. Consider another, which is perhaps more clear: if a company is conducting research into novel technology, and a competitor does the same - when initial results are encouraging but not rock-solid, should the execs give the go-ahead for e.g. technology trials in the hope that they might beat the competitor to the stakes, or should they wait until it is proven that an attempt to implement the new discoveries would not be a waste of money? This, it seems, is the real salient point here. Having read only the article (the concept is entirely new to me) it looks like the only "science" (in the meaning of "scientific research") involved in post-normal science is the science of decision-making based on imperfect knowledge. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing unencyclopaedic material

See this comment above:

There are still some arguments and counter-arguments on "criticism" to be properly cited.- Mario J Alves (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So now, after four and a half years, not even one of the statements in the Criticism section has been cited. Therefore the entire section is unencyclopaedic, and per WP guidelines, may be removed summarily; which I will now proceed to do. Mind you, this in no way implies that I believe there is no criticism of the whole "Post-Normal Science" concept; rather, that no Wikipedia editor has yet supplied any reliable citation for the statements made in this section. So, with reluctance, I will remove the section. Please feel free to revert this edit - if you supply the necessary references, preferably secondary.

It's such a pity, for there really ought to be some cogent published criticism of such a poor understanding of science - particularly from somebody who teaches its history. The closest such criticism I've found is on the Internet, in several replies to Jeremy Ravetz's blog postings. Has anybody seen better? If so, please improve this section!

yoyo (talk) 07:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In the event, I left behind one paragraph, which, for all its weaknesses, does have a single citation. yoyo (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird article

I know that all philosophy articles are hard to understand, but it's really not clear what's going on with this. It sounds kind of like an intelligent-design style ideological attack on science-based policymaking, reminiscent of the strategies employed by the tobacco industry to confuse the public about the threats of smoking (see Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes and Conway, etc.).

Is there something else there? ---The Cunctator (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

criticism section before purge

the original is in this revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Post-normal_science&oldid=193445779 . Here is an extended quote:

Detractors of post-normal science, conversely, see it as a method of trying to argue for a given set of actions despite a lack of evidence for them, and as a method of trying to stifle opposing voices calling for caution by accusing them of hidden biases. Many consider post-normal science an attempt to ignore proper scientific methods in an attempt to substitute inferior methodology in service of political goals. Practitioners advocating post normal science methods defend their methods, suggesting that their methodologies are not to be considered replacements for dealing with those situations in which normal science works sufficiently well. Few mainstream scientists advocate the approaches taken by post-normal science, even among those who agree with the goals of Funtowicz and Ravetz, though the idea has gained some publicity in recent times, appearing prominently in an article published in The Guardian in March 2007 [1]. Some argue that there seems to be little to distinguish post-normal science from the skewed cargo cult science described by Richard Feynman in 1974.

What are the concepts and methods of post-normal science?

This article says "Post-normal science is a concept ... attempting to characterise a methodology of inquiry ..."

It later says "Few mainstream scientists advocate the approaches taken by post-normal science"

But it doesn't really say anything about what those approaches are. The nearest we get is "advocates of post-normal science suggest that there must be an 'extended peer community' consisting of all those affected by an issue who are prepared to enter into dialogue on it. These parties bring their 'extended facts', that will include local knowledge and materials not originally intended for publication, such as leaked official information."

Can we say more than this? At the moment, it just looks like post-normal science is just pointing out the obvious fact that sometimes we need to make a decision when we don't understand everything.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger with "Postnormal times"

I think Postnormal times can't be established as an additional concept. Material in that article is undercited and reads like an opinion essay. The article list a lot of references, but they (and any others I could find) are all from the originator of the concept, from the exchanges in Futures (journal), or are actually about 'postnormal science'. No secondary sources establish the notability of the 'postnormal times' concept.

If no one objects I will discard most of the material from 'Postnormal times' and move a condensed version into 'Postnormal science'. The article Post-normal science is also very incomprehensible and disorganized at this point, but I think the material from Postnormal times should be trimmed down and moved to a common location as a first step towards organizing the whole thing.Cyrej (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I carried out the merger, moving the core and better-supported paragraphs of Postnormal times to a new section here. I discarded parts of the Postnormal times that were unreferenced and personal essay like.Cyrej (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

Introduction is unclear, can we get a first sentence that establishes an "is a..." relationship? (MOS:FIRST ) What kind of thing is postnormal science? A science, a branch of science, a theory, and approach, a body of work... ? Currently it says "represents [...] an approach [...] ". CyreJ (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, the whole article is overly technical, and could stand to be made more easily understandable. I've spent several minutes trying to make sense of what postnormal science even is, and and this article only made me more confused. It is incomprehensible, and needs extensive rewrites. - 87.58.119.203 (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I vaguely remember I have tried, Talk section above, just throwing some material with primary or unrelated sources out in related article "post-normal times". It seems someone disagreed and reverted, as the article is still here. Did not start a further debate about it, as they could (rightly) say I just don't understand philosophy or whatever this is. Maybe we can bring this to a (philosophy of science?) noticeboard to get some people who do have the expertise to judge. CyreJ (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dear CyreJ

I rewrote the initial part of the entry. Please allow me to note that defining PNS is not easy, although there is now an abundant literature on the topic - Google Scholar returns 120,000 entries for "post normal science". PNS is not a new science, nor a new method, but perhaps - loosely speaking - an epistemological stance, a way of looking at science when it is deployed in the solution of social, political or ecological problem. Is the page 'overly technical'? I hope it is not but I welcome any suggestion to make it more clear. For the time being I dare remove the 'Confusing' stub. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Reacting to a recent editing of User talk:MrOllie

Dear User talk:MrOllie, In this page, as well as in the other pages you have visited last September, i.e. Sensitivity analysis , Sensitivity auditing, Sociology of quantification, Ethics of quantification, Quantitative storytelling and others, your intervention could perhaps be improved. In the present page, the following entire paragraph has been cut:

Today post-normal science is intended as applicable to most instances where the use of evidence is contested due to different norms and values. Typical instances are in the use of evidence based policy and in evaluation.

I am not asking that this paragraph is reinstated, but I note that – even suspending the judgment on the relevance of the article object of COI, here as elsewhere authors not involved in any COI dispute (such as here) should not be hastily sacrificed. I welcome your opinion on this principle. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Proposed changes to the page

After reflecting I think it is legitimate to suggest the modification using the COI template.Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• Specific text to be added or removed: Two sentences and three new references, of which two mine. Changes in part motivated by the intervention of User:MrOllie, see above in the Talk Page.
• Reason for the change: Relevance to the page
• References supporting change: See references themselves

−

As summarized in a recent work "the ideas and concepts of post normal science bring about the emergence

+

Post-normal science is intended as applicable to most instances where the use of evidence is contested due to different norms and values. Typical instances are in the use of [[evidence based policy]] and in [[evaluation]]. As summarized in a recent work "the ideas and concepts of post normal science bring about the emergence

−

Another criticism is that the extended peer community's use undermines the scientific method's use of empiricism and that its goal would be better addressed by providing greater science education.

+

Another criticism is that the extended peer community's use undermines the scientific method's use of empiricism and that its goal would be better addressed by providing greater science education. More on the critique of PNS in an article in [[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer]]'s[[Foundations of Science]]

Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Saltean: The first part of your edit request is reasonable, but, with all due respect, the second part is effectively promotion. If you wish to rephrase it, or remove it entirely, please let me know! Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 23:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for considering my request. This is my first time using the COI template, if possible please help with the following questions.

1. The first modification comes with two references (the one of Schwandt and mine). Is this hence accepted?
2. OK (i) to remove More on the critique of PNS in an article in Springer's Foundations of Science and the reference to the FODA paper or (ii) Still remove the sentence but leave the FODA reference to justify Another criticism is that the extended peer community's use undermines the scientific method's use of empiricism and that its goal would be better addressed by providing greater science education. Please let me know if options (i) or (ii) is acceptable.
3. In case you approve the above what happens next? May I proceed?

Thanks for your help. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that the question is considered as answered so I only made the first modification as suggested by User:Guessitsavis and abandoned the second. Thanks. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

References