|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject History of Science||(Rated Stub-class)|
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... --184.108.40.206 (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:
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!
- 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)
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.).
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 . 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.