Talk:Post-normal science

message: 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)
replies: text: In the event, I left behind one paragraph, which, for all its weaknesses, does have a single citation.  yoyo (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing unencyclopaedic material

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weird article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What are the concepts and methods of post-normal science? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merger with "Postnormal times"

message: 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 and in evaluation.
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 here) should not be hastily sacrificed. I welcome your opinion on this principle. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reacting to a recent editing  of [[User talk:MrOllie]]