Normative science: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
added wikilink
URLs to DOIs in references
Line 1: Line 1:
In the [[applied sciences]], '''normative science''' is a type of information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular outcome, policy or class of policies or outcomes.<ref>Lackey, Robert T. (2004). [http://fw.oregonstate.edu/system/files/u2937/2004c%20-%20Normative%20Science%20-%20Reprint%20-%20Lackey.pdf Normative Science], Fisheries, American Fisheries Society. 29(7): 38-39.</ref> Regular or traditional [[science]] does not presuppose a [[policy]] preference, but [[normative]] science, by definition, does.<ref>Ooms, Gorik. (2014). [http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/14/36 From international health to global health: how to foster better dialogue between empirical and normative disciplines]. BMC International Health and Human Rights. 14: 36.</ref> Common examples of such policy preferences are arguments that pristine [[ecosystems]] are preferable to human altered ones, that native species are preferable to nonnative species, and that higher [[biodiversity]] is preferable to lower biodiversity.<ref>Lackey, Robert T. (2007). [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00639.x/abstract;jsessionid=1E4F2F827867D075DD43D28821A08A13.d03t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+3+Dec+from+10-12+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance Science, scientists, and policy advocacy]. Conservation Biology. 21(1): 12-17. </ref><ref>Wilhere, George F. (2012). [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01805.x/abstract Inadvertent advocacy]. Conservation Biology. 26(1): 39-46.</ref>
In the [[applied sciences]], '''normative science''' is a type of information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular outcome, policy or class of policies or outcomes.<ref>Lackey, Robert T. (2004). [https://blogs.oregonstate.edu/lackey/files/2017/07/2004c-Normative-Science-Reprint-Lackey.pdf "Normative science"]. ''Fisheries''. American Fisheries Society. 29(7): 38–39.</ref> Regular or traditional [[science]] does not presuppose a [[policy]] preference, but [[normative]] science, by definition, does.<ref>Ooms, Gorik. (2014). "From international health to global health: how to foster better dialogue between empirical and normative disciplines". ''BMC International Health and Human Rights''. 14: 36. {{DOI|10.1186/s12914-014-0036-5}}</ref> Common examples of such policy preferences are arguments that pristine [[ecosystems]] are preferable to human altered ones, that native species are preferable to nonnative species, and that higher [[biodiversity]] is preferable to lower biodiversity.<ref>Lackey, Robert T. (2007). "Science, scientists, and policy advocacy". ''Conservation Biology''. 21(1): 12-17. {{DOI|10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00639.x}}</ref><ref>Wilhere, George F. (2012). "Inadvertent advocacy". ''Conservation Biology''. 26(1): 39–46. {{DOI|10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01805.x}}</ref>


In more general philosophical terms, normative science is a form of [[inquiry]], typically involving a community of inquiry and its accumulated body of provisional knowledge, that seeks to discover good ways of achieving recognized aims, ends, goals, objectives, or purposes.<ref>Sabine, George H. (1912). [https://archive.org/details/jstor-2177252 Descriptive and normative sciences]. The Philosophical Review. 21(4): 433-450.</ref><ref>Brueckner, Martin and Pierre Horwitz. (2005). [http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol1iss2/0412-017.brueckner.html The use of science in environmental policy: a case study of the Regional Forest Agreement process in Western Australia]. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy. 1(2): 14-24.</ref> Many political debates revolve around arguments over which of the many "good ways" shall be selected.<ref>Short, T. L. (2012). [http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/transactions_of_the_charles_s_peirce_society/v048/48.3.short01.html Normative science?] Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 48(3): 310-334.</ref> For example, when presented as scientific information, words such as [[ecosystem health]], [[biological integrity]], and [[environmental degradation]] are typically examples of normative science because they each presuppose a policy preference and are therefore a type of [[policy advocacy]].<ref>Landis, Wayne G. (2007). [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ieam.5630030312/full The Exxon Valdez oil spill revisited and the dangers of normative science]. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 3(3): 439-441.</ref><ref>Wilhere, George F. (2012). [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01805.x/abstract Inadvertent advocacy]. Conservation Biology. 26(1): 39-46.</ref>
In more general philosophical terms, normative science is a form of [[inquiry]], typically involving a community of inquiry and its accumulated body of provisional knowledge, that seeks to discover good ways of achieving recognized aims, ends, goals, objectives, or purposes.<ref>Sabine, George H. (1912). "Descriptive and normative sciences". ''The Philosophical Review''. 21(4): 433-450. {{JSTOR|2177252}}</ref><ref>Brueckner, Martin and Pierre Horwitz. (2005). "The use of science in environmental policy: a case study of the Regional Forest Agreement process in Western Australia". ''Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy''. 1(2): 14–24. {{DOI|10.1080/15487733.2005.11907969}}</ref> Many political debates revolve around arguments over which of the many "good ways" shall be selected.<ref>Short, T. L. (2012). [https://muse.jhu.edu/article/496890 "Normative science?"] ''Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society''. 48(3): 310–334. {{JSTOR|10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.48.3.310}}</ref> For example, when presented as scientific information, words such as [[ecosystem health]], [[biological integrity]], and [[environmental degradation]] are typically examples of normative science because they each presuppose a policy preference and are therefore a type of [[policy advocacy]].<ref>Landis, Wayne G. (2007). "The ''Exxon Valdez'' oil spill revisited and the dangers of normative science". ''Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management''. 3(3): 439–441. {{DOI|10.1002/ieam.5630030312}}</ref><ref>Wilhere, George F. (2012). "Inadvertent advocacy". ''Conservation Biology''. 26(1): 39–46. {{DOI|10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01805.x}}</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 17:51, 13 April 2020

In the applied sciences, normative science is a type of information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular outcome, policy or class of policies or outcomes.[1] Regular or traditional science does not presuppose a policy preference, but normative science, by definition, does.[2] Common examples of such policy preferences are arguments that pristine ecosystems are preferable to human altered ones, that native species are preferable to nonnative species, and that higher biodiversity is preferable to lower biodiversity.[3][4]

In more general philosophical terms, normative science is a form of inquiry, typically involving a community of inquiry and its accumulated body of provisional knowledge, that seeks to discover good ways of achieving recognized aims, ends, goals, objectives, or purposes.[5][6] Many political debates revolve around arguments over which of the many "good ways" shall be selected.[7] For example, when presented as scientific information, words such as ecosystem health, biological integrity, and environmental degradation are typically examples of normative science because they each presuppose a policy preference and are therefore a type of policy advocacy.[8][9]

See also

References

  1. ^ Lackey, Robert T. (2004). "Normative science". Fisheries. American Fisheries Society. 29(7): 38–39.
  2. ^ Ooms, Gorik. (2014). "From international health to global health: how to foster better dialogue between empirical and normative disciplines". BMC International Health and Human Rights. 14: 36. doi:10.1186/s12914-014-0036-5
  3. ^ Lackey, Robert T. (2007). "Science, scientists, and policy advocacy". Conservation Biology. 21(1): 12-17. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00639.x
  4. ^ Wilhere, George F. (2012). "Inadvertent advocacy". Conservation Biology. 26(1): 39–46. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01805.x
  5. ^ Sabine, George H. (1912). "Descriptive and normative sciences". The Philosophical Review. 21(4): 433-450. JSTOR 2177252
  6. ^ Brueckner, Martin and Pierre Horwitz. (2005). "The use of science in environmental policy: a case study of the Regional Forest Agreement process in Western Australia". Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy. 1(2): 14–24. doi:10.1080/15487733.2005.11907969
  7. ^ Short, T. L. (2012). "Normative science?" Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society. 48(3): 310–334. JSTOR 10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.48.3.310
  8. ^ Landis, Wayne G. (2007). "The Exxon Valdez oil spill revisited and the dangers of normative science". Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management. 3(3): 439–441. doi:10.1002/ieam.5630030312
  9. ^ Wilhere, George F. (2012). "Inadvertent advocacy". Conservation Biology. 26(1): 39–46. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01805.x
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normative_science&oldid=950758519"