Future Now
The IFTF Blog
Post-Normal Science
Jerry Ravetz is, so far as I can tell, the only other futurist (besides me) who had a previous career as an historian of science. For some time, he's been working on a concept he calls "post-normal science" (described in greater depth here), whose basic idea is that while science continues to be an essential resource for modern society, certain kinds of certainty we've been accustomed to are becoming increasingly elusive:
Once upon a time we were all sure that Science would provide the true facts that would entail the correct policy decisions. Perhaps it was never really that simple. But whatever actually happened in the past, the present is drastically different. Even if the times were never completely 'normal', they are certainly post-normal now. Where will the energy come from? What about nuclear waste? What about climate change and species extinctions? Such issues have a scientific core, but there's no textbook with the answers at the back.
The message of Post-Normal Science is that policy-relevant science is affected by uncertainties and value-commitments. As we say, 'facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent'. This is explained in terms of 'complexity theory'. That is not the same as 'complicated', which refers to lots of messy variables. A complex system is one where there is no single privileged perspective. For resolving complex policy issues, scientific demonstration must be complemented by a broad societal dialogue....
The times are now definitely post-normal. Will science be able to change with them? Can it move from simplistic beliefs to complex understandings? The task of post-normal science is to assist in this evolution, at the next stage of history.
I confess I've found the concept unappealing-- or maybe that's not the right term; not particularly engaging-- have never been quite sure why. Maybe its the implication that times are now too urgent for certainty, an argument that I think can cut many different ways. However, I'm no longer so sure. Or perhaps what Ravetz has come up with (consciously or not) is a pretty good description of the issues involved in being a futurist.