Post normal science and rationality of scientific work: the study of the role of values in "post normal age"

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Author

National Research Institute of science policy. Department of theory oriented studies of science, technology and innovation

Abstract

In 20th century, a large part of science became a strategic tool for policy action. increasing Public trust in science created an expectation for providing adequate responses to global (or local) problems, such as environmental crises, pandemics, and... Normal Science, as Thomas Kuhn described, do not seems to be able to solve the problems.
“Post Normal Science"(PNS) refers to a new puzzle solving system in which Global problems i.e.the problems with high uncertainty, disputed values, high stakeholders, and urgent decision-making are discussed. The quality of scientific activities in post normal science is assured by an extended peer community, i.e. a large community which consists of not only local scientific experts, but also publics and the experts in different scientific areas. The claim is that in post normal science the relationship between fact and value is reversed, and it is facts that changed in accord with values.
In the paper, by describing post normal science and analyzing the concept, it will be argued that the boundary between normal science and post normal science, can be clarified by decrease in interest in activities based on instrumental rationality i.e. the rationality in which the logic of science is working as a means for achieving to a pre-determined purpose. the proposed alternative to instrumental rationality is the one in which the goal of science will be achieved through a procedure based on public understanding.

Keywords

References

1. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz (1995), “Science for the post normal age”, Perspectives on ecological integrity, Springer, Dordrecht, 146−161.
2. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. (1993), “The emergence of post−normal science”, Science, politics and morality. Springer, Dordrecht, 85−123.
3. Funtowicz, Silvio, and Jerome Ravetz (2018), “Post-−normal science”, Companion to Environmental Studies, Vol. 443, No. 447, ROUTLEDGE in association with GSE Research, 443−447.
4. Gibbons, Michael (1994), the new production of knowledge, the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies.
5. Gibbons, Michael (2001), Governance and new production of science, in Science, technology and Governanace, Edited by John de la mothe, continuum London and New York.
6. Hume, David (1740), A Treatise of human nature, oxford: clarendon press.
7. Lacey, Hugh (1999), Is science value free?: Values and scientific understanding, Psychology Press, 2004.
8. Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar (1979), Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts, Princeton University Press, 2013.
9. Pinch, T, J. (1997), “Kuhn − The Conservative and Radical Interpretations: Are Some Mertonians 'Kuhnians' and Some Kuhnians 'Mertonians'?”, Social Studies of Science, Jun, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Jun., 1997), pp. 465−482.
10. Rip, Arie (2018), Futures of Science and Technology in Society, Springer.
11. Von Schomberg, Rene (1993), Science, politics and Morality, Scientific Uncertainty and Decision Making, Springer−Science Business Media
12. Weber, M. (1949), The Methodology of social sciences, New York, Free Press.
13. Habermas, Jurgen (1981), theory of communicative action, vol. two, translated by  Thomas A. McCarthy. Boston, Mass, Beacon press
14. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962), The structure of scientific revolutions, University of Chicago press, 2012.
15. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1973), “Objectivity, Value Judgment and Theory choice”, The essential Tension: selected studies in science trandition and change, university of Chicago press (1977), 320−39.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics