慎重处理棘手问题:不完美知识的存在论、认识论和伦理关系

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS Futures Pub Date : 2024-07-31 DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2024.103436
Martin Paul O’Connor , Jean-Marc Douguet
{"title":"慎重处理棘手问题:不完美知识的存在论、认识论和伦理关系","authors":"Martin Paul O’Connor ,&nbsp;Jean-Marc Douguet","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Our problem is to express intertwined existential, epistemological and ethical aspects of a scientific method for informing action under conditions of high stakes and urgency. Addressing situations where, taking Descartes at his word, “…the pressure of things to be done does not allow us to stop and make a meticulous check,” we set out a framework for multi-actor multi-criteria deliberative evaluation for building knowledge partnerships within wicked problems of action. With the metaphor of Borges' Library of Babel, we suggest a cataloguing process whose effect is to signal, or assign, the Qualities of a knowledge proposition along several axes of the context of their mobilisation. The protagonists in a controversy are actors de facto in a KQA deliberation process, contributors (willy-nilly) to a collective resource of putative knowledge claims, participants in Borges' eternally-unfinished Congress of the World. Finally, with urgency and high stakes is associated the passage - repeated, traumatic, ineluctable - through dilemmas. These passages, irreducible to rationalisation, are often painful and always transformative. Adopting a third Borges metaphor, The Garden of Forking Paths, we argue for a reflexivity accepting the ethical complexity of our status as vulnerable actors engaged hastily, in necessarily value-laden terms, in matters of life-and-death.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"163 ","pages":"Article 103436"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001198/pdfft?md5=a92f1873b69e22dfbe9f9e89ad6805c0&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001198-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Working deliberat(iv)ely with(in) wicked problems: The existential, epistemological and ethical nexus of imperfect knowledge\",\"authors\":\"Martin Paul O’Connor ,&nbsp;Jean-Marc Douguet\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Our problem is to express intertwined existential, epistemological and ethical aspects of a scientific method for informing action under conditions of high stakes and urgency. Addressing situations where, taking Descartes at his word, “…the pressure of things to be done does not allow us to stop and make a meticulous check,” we set out a framework for multi-actor multi-criteria deliberative evaluation for building knowledge partnerships within wicked problems of action. With the metaphor of Borges' Library of Babel, we suggest a cataloguing process whose effect is to signal, or assign, the Qualities of a knowledge proposition along several axes of the context of their mobilisation. The protagonists in a controversy are actors de facto in a KQA deliberation process, contributors (willy-nilly) to a collective resource of putative knowledge claims, participants in Borges' eternally-unfinished Congress of the World. Finally, with urgency and high stakes is associated the passage - repeated, traumatic, ineluctable - through dilemmas. These passages, irreducible to rationalisation, are often painful and always transformative. Adopting a third Borges metaphor, The Garden of Forking Paths, we argue for a reflexivity accepting the ethical complexity of our status as vulnerable actors engaged hastily, in necessarily value-laden terms, in matters of life-and-death.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Futures\",\"volume\":\"163 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103436\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001198/pdfft?md5=a92f1873b69e22dfbe9f9e89ad6805c0&pid=1-s2.0-S0016328724001198-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Futures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001198\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001198","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们的问题是要表达一种科学方法的存在论、认识论和伦理学方面的相互交织,以便在高度利害关系和紧迫条件下为行动提供信息。笛卡尔曾说过:"......要做的事情太多,不允许我们停下来进行细致的检查。"针对这种情况,我们提出了一个多行为者多标准审议评估框架,以便在邪恶的行动问题中建立知识伙伴关系。以博尔赫斯的《巴别图书馆》为喻,我们提出了一个编目过程,其作用是根据知识命题动员背景的几个轴心来标示或指定知识命题的特质。争论中的主角实际上是知识质量保证讨论过程中的行动者,是推定知识主张集体资源的贡献者(随意的),是博尔赫斯永远未完成的世界大会的参与者。最后,与紧迫性和高风险相关联的是穿越困境的过程--重复的、创伤性的、不可避免的。这些无法合理化的过程往往是痛苦的,但总是具有变革性。我们采用博尔赫斯的第三个比喻 "岔路花园",主张一种反思性,接受我们作为易受伤害的行动者,在生死攸关的问题上匆忙行事的复杂性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Working deliberat(iv)ely with(in) wicked problems: The existential, epistemological and ethical nexus of imperfect knowledge

Our problem is to express intertwined existential, epistemological and ethical aspects of a scientific method for informing action under conditions of high stakes and urgency. Addressing situations where, taking Descartes at his word, “…the pressure of things to be done does not allow us to stop and make a meticulous check,” we set out a framework for multi-actor multi-criteria deliberative evaluation for building knowledge partnerships within wicked problems of action. With the metaphor of Borges' Library of Babel, we suggest a cataloguing process whose effect is to signal, or assign, the Qualities of a knowledge proposition along several axes of the context of their mobilisation. The protagonists in a controversy are actors de facto in a KQA deliberation process, contributors (willy-nilly) to a collective resource of putative knowledge claims, participants in Borges' eternally-unfinished Congress of the World. Finally, with urgency and high stakes is associated the passage - repeated, traumatic, ineluctable - through dilemmas. These passages, irreducible to rationalisation, are often painful and always transformative. Adopting a third Borges metaphor, The Garden of Forking Paths, we argue for a reflexivity accepting the ethical complexity of our status as vulnerable actors engaged hastily, in necessarily value-laden terms, in matters of life-and-death.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
期刊最新文献
Feminist urban futures: Envisioning the future of Ukrainian cities through the lens of the displaced community in Valencia (Spain) Imagined futures in sustainability transitions: Towards diverse future-making Temporality in the United Nations 2030 Agenda: development or rupture? From “snowflake generation” to “agents of social change”: Recognizing the voice of Spanish young people in the post-pandemic era The politics of transdisciplinary research on societal transitions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1