This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Postnormal times page were merged into Post-normal science on 4 February 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
the original is in this revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?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.
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)
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)
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)
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 [1] and in evaluation. [2]
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 [2] here) should not be hastily sacrificed. I welcome your opinion on this principle. Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk) 10:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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)
− | 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)
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contents of the Postnormal times page were merged into Post-normal science on 4 February 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
the original is in this revision http://en.wikipedia.org/?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.
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)
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)
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)
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 [1] and in evaluation. [2]
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 [2] here) should not be hastily sacrificed. I welcome your opinion on this principle. Andrea Saltelli Saltean ( talk) 10:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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)
− | 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)
References