后常态科学的伦理动机

IF 3 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS Futures Pub Date : 2024-08-17 DOI:10.1016/j.futures.2024.103457
Gaston Meskens
{"title":"后常态科学的伦理动机","authors":"Gaston Meskens","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper focuses on the concept of post-normal science, originally proposed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, as an advanced method of knowledge generation for policy, and reflects on the ethical motivations for both its theoretical meaning and its practical realisation. In order to put the reflection on the why and how of post-normal science in a broader contemporary and future-oriented context, I will first elaborate on what I call ‘the politics of hypothesis’ and argue that the fundamental challenge for science that aims to advice policy today is not the problem of strategic manipulation of scientific advice by politics, civil society or the market, but rather the problem of dealing with the lack of evidence in situations where politics, civil society or the market ‘need’ that evidence to (urgently) inform, criticise or justify specific actions or practices. Confronted with the need to deal with incomplete and speculative knowledge, in many cases, scientific hypotheses have become the ‘end products’ of science themselves, and society has no other choice than to deal with them in a responsible way. The challenge of science in these cases is therefore not any longer the production of convincing proofs, it is the construction of credible hypotheses. Against this backdrop, a second part will recall how the normative motivation for post-normal science was originally worked out by Funtowicz and Ravetz. I will re-emphasize why and how the argumentation of Funtowicz and Ravetz in favour of the democratisation of science and the opening up of the dialogue to include opinions, beliefs and lay knowledge of ‘non-experts’ is ethical. Consequently, the third part proposes some paths for further ethical reflection with regard to the value and meaning of post-normal science in the ‘post-normal age’. I will briefly elaborate on the concept of transdisciplinarity, the idea of ‘co-creation’ of complexity, the concept of holism and the idea of the unavoidable moral authority of the present generation in intergenerational ethics. The reason is that each of these explorations is at the same time and in its own way an invitation to reflect on who we are as humanity, and on how we can possibly make sense of things for the better. I hope to make clear not only how these concepts and ideas may inspire the ethics of post-normal science, but also that they should become topic of concern in post-normal science dialogues themselves. Finally, in conclusion, I will situate the original ethical motivation for post-normal science in a broader perspective on responsible knowledge generation ‘in face of’ the complexity of complex problems and argue that the overall ethical motivation for postnormal science is to enable an emancipatory and (respectfully) confrontational dialogue and not to come to a full understanding of the complexity of a complex problem or to ‘proof’ specific hypotheses. I will consequently suggest that, responding to the ‘ethical appeal’ of complexity, ‘reflexivity’ with respect to the own position, interests, strategies, hopes, hypotheses, believes and concerns would be the fundamental ethical attitude for anyone concerned. Reflexivity as a ‘quality’ of the science-policy interface does not only require science to reform in order to enable it to generate more reflexive policy advice, but also politics to reform into inclusive and deliberative forms of decision making prepared to become inspired and instructed by that reflexive policy advice. Post-normal science can in that sense be understood as a ‘method’ that can generate reflexivity at the science-policy interface and even as a deliberate political ‘act’ of knowledge generation involving science, political decision makers and civil society.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ethical motivation for post-normal science\",\"authors\":\"Gaston Meskens\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.futures.2024.103457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This paper focuses on the concept of post-normal science, originally proposed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, as an advanced method of knowledge generation for policy, and reflects on the ethical motivations for both its theoretical meaning and its practical realisation. In order to put the reflection on the why and how of post-normal science in a broader contemporary and future-oriented context, I will first elaborate on what I call ‘the politics of hypothesis’ and argue that the fundamental challenge for science that aims to advice policy today is not the problem of strategic manipulation of scientific advice by politics, civil society or the market, but rather the problem of dealing with the lack of evidence in situations where politics, civil society or the market ‘need’ that evidence to (urgently) inform, criticise or justify specific actions or practices. Confronted with the need to deal with incomplete and speculative knowledge, in many cases, scientific hypotheses have become the ‘end products’ of science themselves, and society has no other choice than to deal with them in a responsible way. The challenge of science in these cases is therefore not any longer the production of convincing proofs, it is the construction of credible hypotheses. Against this backdrop, a second part will recall how the normative motivation for post-normal science was originally worked out by Funtowicz and Ravetz. I will re-emphasize why and how the argumentation of Funtowicz and Ravetz in favour of the democratisation of science and the opening up of the dialogue to include opinions, beliefs and lay knowledge of ‘non-experts’ is ethical. Consequently, the third part proposes some paths for further ethical reflection with regard to the value and meaning of post-normal science in the ‘post-normal age’. I will briefly elaborate on the concept of transdisciplinarity, the idea of ‘co-creation’ of complexity, the concept of holism and the idea of the unavoidable moral authority of the present generation in intergenerational ethics. The reason is that each of these explorations is at the same time and in its own way an invitation to reflect on who we are as humanity, and on how we can possibly make sense of things for the better. I hope to make clear not only how these concepts and ideas may inspire the ethics of post-normal science, but also that they should become topic of concern in post-normal science dialogues themselves. Finally, in conclusion, I will situate the original ethical motivation for post-normal science in a broader perspective on responsible knowledge generation ‘in face of’ the complexity of complex problems and argue that the overall ethical motivation for postnormal science is to enable an emancipatory and (respectfully) confrontational dialogue and not to come to a full understanding of the complexity of a complex problem or to ‘proof’ specific hypotheses. I will consequently suggest that, responding to the ‘ethical appeal’ of complexity, ‘reflexivity’ with respect to the own position, interests, strategies, hopes, hypotheses, believes and concerns would be the fundamental ethical attitude for anyone concerned. Reflexivity as a ‘quality’ of the science-policy interface does not only require science to reform in order to enable it to generate more reflexive policy advice, but also politics to reform into inclusive and deliberative forms of decision making prepared to become inspired and instructed by that reflexive policy advice. Post-normal science can in that sense be understood as a ‘method’ that can generate reflexivity at the science-policy interface and even as a deliberate political ‘act’ of knowledge generation involving science, political decision makers and civil society.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48239,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Futures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Futures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328724001393\",\"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/S0016328724001393","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

本文重点论述了后常态科学的概念,这一概念最初由西尔维奥-丰托维茨和杰罗姆-拉维兹提出,作为一种先进的政策知识生成方法,并反思了其理论意义和实际实现的伦理动机。为了将对 "后常态科学 "的 "为什么 "和 "如何 "的思考置于更广泛的当代和面向未来的背景中,我将首先阐述我所称的 "假设的政治",并认为当今旨在为政策提供建议的科学所面临的根本挑战不是政治、公民社会或市场对科学建议的战略性操纵问题,而是在政治、公民社会或市场 "需要 "证据来(紧急)为特定行动或实践提供信息、批评或证明的情况下如何处理证据不足的问题。由于需要处理不完整的和推测性的知识,在许多情况下,科学假说已经成为科学本身的 "最终产品",社会除了以负责任的方式处理它们之外别无选择。因此,在这些情况下,科学面临的挑战不再是提出令人信服的证明,而是构建可信的假说。在此背景下,第二部分将回顾 Funtowicz 和 Ravetz 最初是如何提出后常态科学的规范性动机的。我将再次强调 Funtowicz 和 Ravetz 支持科学民主化和开放对话以纳入 "非专家 "的意见、信仰和非专业知识的论点为何以及如何具有伦理意义。因此,第三部分就 "后常态时代 "后常态科学的价值和意义提出了一些进一步进行伦理思考的路径。我将简要阐述跨学科性的概念、复杂性的 "共同创造 "理念、整体论的概念以及代际伦理中当代人不可避免的道德权威的理念。原因在于,每一种探索都同时以自己的方式邀请我们反思我们作为人类的身份,以及我们如何才能更好地理解事物。我不仅希望阐明这些概念和思想如何启发后常态科学的伦理,而且还希望它们成为后常态科学对话本身所关注的话题。最后,我将从 "面对 "复杂问题的复杂性而负责任地创造知识这一更广阔的视角来审视 后常态科学的最初伦理动机,并认为后常态科学的总体伦理动机是促成一种解放性的、(恭 敬地)对抗性的对话,而不是为了全面理解复杂问题的复杂性或 "证明 "具体的假设。因此,我建议,为了回应复杂性的 "伦理诉求",任何相关人员都应该对自己的立场、 利益、策略、希望、假设、信念和关切采取 "反身性 "的伦理态度。反思性作为科学与政策界面的一种 "品质",不仅要求科学进行改革,使其能够提出更多具有反思性的政策建议,而且要求政治进行改革,使其成为具有包容性和审议性的决策形式,准备好接受具有反思性的政策建议的启发和指导。从这个意义上讲,后常态科学可以被理解为一种 "方法",它可以在科学与政策之间产生反思性,甚至可以被理解为一种由科学、政治决策者和民间社会共同参与的有意识的知识生成政治 "行为"。
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
The ethical motivation for post-normal science

This paper focuses on the concept of post-normal science, originally proposed by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome Ravetz, as an advanced method of knowledge generation for policy, and reflects on the ethical motivations for both its theoretical meaning and its practical realisation. In order to put the reflection on the why and how of post-normal science in a broader contemporary and future-oriented context, I will first elaborate on what I call ‘the politics of hypothesis’ and argue that the fundamental challenge for science that aims to advice policy today is not the problem of strategic manipulation of scientific advice by politics, civil society or the market, but rather the problem of dealing with the lack of evidence in situations where politics, civil society or the market ‘need’ that evidence to (urgently) inform, criticise or justify specific actions or practices. Confronted with the need to deal with incomplete and speculative knowledge, in many cases, scientific hypotheses have become the ‘end products’ of science themselves, and society has no other choice than to deal with them in a responsible way. The challenge of science in these cases is therefore not any longer the production of convincing proofs, it is the construction of credible hypotheses. Against this backdrop, a second part will recall how the normative motivation for post-normal science was originally worked out by Funtowicz and Ravetz. I will re-emphasize why and how the argumentation of Funtowicz and Ravetz in favour of the democratisation of science and the opening up of the dialogue to include opinions, beliefs and lay knowledge of ‘non-experts’ is ethical. Consequently, the third part proposes some paths for further ethical reflection with regard to the value and meaning of post-normal science in the ‘post-normal age’. I will briefly elaborate on the concept of transdisciplinarity, the idea of ‘co-creation’ of complexity, the concept of holism and the idea of the unavoidable moral authority of the present generation in intergenerational ethics. The reason is that each of these explorations is at the same time and in its own way an invitation to reflect on who we are as humanity, and on how we can possibly make sense of things for the better. I hope to make clear not only how these concepts and ideas may inspire the ethics of post-normal science, but also that they should become topic of concern in post-normal science dialogues themselves. Finally, in conclusion, I will situate the original ethical motivation for post-normal science in a broader perspective on responsible knowledge generation ‘in face of’ the complexity of complex problems and argue that the overall ethical motivation for postnormal science is to enable an emancipatory and (respectfully) confrontational dialogue and not to come to a full understanding of the complexity of a complex problem or to ‘proof’ specific hypotheses. I will consequently suggest that, responding to the ‘ethical appeal’ of complexity, ‘reflexivity’ with respect to the own position, interests, strategies, hopes, hypotheses, believes and concerns would be the fundamental ethical attitude for anyone concerned. Reflexivity as a ‘quality’ of the science-policy interface does not only require science to reform in order to enable it to generate more reflexive policy advice, but also politics to reform into inclusive and deliberative forms of decision making prepared to become inspired and instructed by that reflexive policy advice. Post-normal science can in that sense be understood as a ‘method’ that can generate reflexivity at the science-policy interface and even as a deliberate political ‘act’ of knowledge generation involving science, political decision makers and civil society.

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
The politics of transdisciplinary research on societal transitions Narratives, expectations, and policy criteria for a democratic and socially engaging energy transition Exploring urban novel ecosystems: Understandings, insights and recommendations for future research and practice Future cities' theories for sustainable future: A systematic literature review Planetary scale climatic change through bioengineering the microbial world. A technofix imaginary
×
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