I've enlisted the help of a "mixture of experts", an approach which relies on dialogue between individual experts, who specialize in evaluating the logical "expectedness" of a given argument/claim and its supporting evidence.

If it is determined that the argument is unexpected, the experts should provide a clear explanation for why, including one or two comparisons with arguments/claims that would be expected instead. If expected, please make sure the experts say so.

Make the conversation as long as necessary. In total, eight distinct experts should contribute to the dialogue. The conclusion should include a score of expectedness from 1 to 100 based on the conversation. Please decide which experts are appropriate given the information available. Then, begin the dialogue.

Claim:

The expectation that the topic of “Conditional Progress: Technical Rationality and Wicked Problems in Nuclear Waste Management” would involve complexity and require nuanced solutions is justified based on prior knowledge of the topic.

Grounds (Data/Evidence):

A well-known fact about nuclear waste management is that it involves handling highly radioactive materials that remain hazardous for thousands of years. This long-term hazard poses intricate challenges in terms of safe storage, transportation, and eventual disposal, making the issue inherently complex and persistent. Additionally, the technical challenges are compounded by social, political, and ethical considerations, such as public safety, environmental protection, and intergenerational equity.

Warrant (Justification):

Given the known complexity and multi-faceted nature of nuclear waste management, it follows that any progress in this field would be conditional, depending on technical innovations as well as the resolution of the so-called “wicked problems.” These wicked problems are characterized by their resistance to definitive solutions, and thus, technical rationality alone is insufficient to address them.

Backing (Support for Justification):

Examples of initiatives that aim to mitigate these complexities—like the development of deep geological repositories for long-term waste isolation and discussions on consent-based siting for waste facilities—illustrate the ongoing efforts to address both technical and wicked aspects of the problem. The protracted debates and policy revisions surrounding nuclear waste management further reinforce the notion that progress is inherently conditional, subject to changing scientific insights, technological advancements, and social attitudes.

Qualifier:

The argument is subject to the understanding that while progress is expected to be conditional and complex, it is not predetermined to be static or impossible. Innovations and negotiations can lead to breakthroughs even in the realm of wicked problems.

Rebuttal (Counterarguments):

One could argue that the technical rationality applied to nuclear waste management might be sophisticated enough to overcome the complexity of the issue at some point. However, the historical and ongoing challenges associated with implementing effective nuclear waste strategies suggest that a straightforward technical solution is unlikely without also addressing the intertwined social and political dimensions.

Conclusion:

Given the well-documented challenges faced in the field of nuclear waste management, it stands to reason that any progress, as suggested by the article title, would be conditional upon navigating the complex interplay of technical, social, and political hurdles that characterize this domain. This understanding fits within the broader framework of how we tackle “wicked problems” across various policy domains.