Talk:Post-normal science

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Post-normal science article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1: 3 months

Philosophy: Science / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science
	Contemporary philosophy

History of Science

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sociology

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Environment

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The content of Postnormal times was merged into Post-normal science on 4 February 2018. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Merger with "Postnormal times"

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)[reply]

I carried out the merger, moving the core and better-supported paragraphs of Postnormal times to a new section here. I discarded parts of the Postnormal times that were unreferenced and personal essay like.Cyrej (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

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)[reply]

Honestly, the whole article is overly technical, and could stand to be made more easily understandable. I've spent several minutes trying to make sense of what postnormal science even is, and and this article only made me more confused. It is incomprehensible, and needs extensive rewrites. - 87.58.119.203 (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember I have tried, Talk section above, just throwing some material with primary or unrelated sources out in related article "post-normal times". It seems someone disagreed and reverted, as the article is still here. Did not start a further debate about it, as they could (rightly) say I just don't understand philosophy or whatever this is. Maybe we can bring this to a (philosophy of science?) noticeboard to get some people who do have the expertise to judge. CyreJ (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CyreJ

I rewrote the initial part of the entry. Please allow me to note that defining PNS is not easy, although there is now an abundant literature on the topic - Google Scholar returns 120,000 entries for "post normal science". PNS is not a new science, nor a new method, but perhaps - loosely speaking - an epistemological stance, a way of looking at science when it is deployed in the solution of social, political or ecological problem. Is the page 'overly technical'? I hope it is not but I welcome any suggestion to make it more clear. For the time being I dare remove the 'Confusing' stub. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reacting to a recent editing of User talk:MrOllie

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)[reply]

References

^ Saltelli, Andrea; Giampietro, Mario (August 2017). "What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?". Futures. 91: 62–71. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012. S2CID 158025051.
^ ^a ^b Schwandt, Thomas A. (July 2019). "Post-normal evaluation?". Evaluation. 25 (3): 317–329. doi:10.1177/1356389019855501. S2CID 198709546.

Proposed changes to the page

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)[reply]

Specific text to be added or removed: Two sentences and three new references, of which two mine. Changes in part motivated by the intervention of User:MrOllie, see above in the Talk Page.
Reason for the change: Relevance to the page
References supporting change: See references themselves

Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saltean: The first part of your edit request is reasonable, but, with all due respect, the second part is effectively promotion. If you wish to rephrase it, or remove it entirely, please let me know! Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 23:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering my request. This is my first time using the COI template, if possible please help with the following questions.

The first modification comes with two references (the one of Schwandt and mine). Is this hence accepted?
OK (i) to remove More on the critique of PNS in an article in Springer's Foundations of Science and the reference to the FODA paper or (ii) Still remove the sentence but leave the FODA reference to justify 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. Please let me know if options (i) or (ii) is acceptable.
In case you approve the above what happens next? May I proceed?

Thanks for your help. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the question is considered as answered so I only made the first modification as suggested by User:Guessitsavis and abandoned the second. Thanks. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Saltelli, Andrea; Giampietro, Mario (August 2017). "What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?". Futures. 91: 62–71. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012. S2CID 158025051.
^ Schwandt, Thomas A. (July 2019). "Post-normal evaluation?". Evaluation. 25 (3): 317–329. doi:10.1177/1356389019855501. S2CID 198709546.
^ Saltelli, Andrea. 2023. “What Is Post-Normal Science? A Personal Encounter.” Foundations of Science, November. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09932-x.

[Wrong_EBP-1] Saltelli, Andrea; Giampietro, Mario (August 2017). "What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?". Futures. 91: 62–71. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012. S2CID 158025051.

[Evaluation-2] Schwandt, Thomas A. (July 2019). "Post-normal evaluation?". Evaluation. 25 (3): 317–329. doi:10.1177/1356389019855501. S2CID 198709546.

[Wrong_EBP-3] Saltelli, Andrea; Giampietro, Mario (August 2017). "What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved?". Futures. 91: 62–71. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012. S2CID 158025051.

[Evaluation-4] Schwandt, Thomas A. (July 2019). "Post-normal evaluation?". Evaluation. 25 (3): 317–329. doi:10.1177/1356389019855501. S2CID 198709546.

[5] Saltelli, Andrea. 2023. “What Is Post-Normal Science? A Personal Encounter.” Foundations of Science, November. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-023-09932-x.

[1]

[2]