Post-normal science

[[File:Ravetz-Funtowicz-1988.jpg|thumb|right|165px|Ravetz and Funtowicz in 1988]]
{{Philosophyscience}}
'''Post-normal science''' is a concept developed by Jerome Ravetz and Silvio Funtowicz in the 1990s to describe certain fields in which high-cost decisions must be made but there is a good deal of uncertainty with relation to the relevant [[science| scientific]] facts. The phrase "post-normal science" is a spin-off of [[Thomas Kuhn]]'s concept of "normal science".<ref>{{wpa | Normal science}}</ref> Ravetz and Funtowicz have mostly applied this concept to ecological [[economics]] and to public-health policy. One of the key components of post-normal science is that it is not value-free, but used in the service of an outcome decided by value judgments (which makes it in some ways similar to decision theory). 

Because of this, Ravetz and Funtowicz argue for a "democratization" of scientific knowledge through an "extended peer community" to integrate "local knowledge, values, and interests".<ref>S. Funtowicz and J. Ravetz. [https://www.ecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf Post-Normal Science]. Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological Economics.</ref> The authors feel that these perspectives and [[other ways of knowing |"other forms of knowing"]] have been unfairly excluded from science despite the fact that they're, well, not really scientific, so they'd like to abolish the underlying [[scientific method| method]] and the discrimination between fact and fancy that it entails. The resulting hollowed-out shell would then be stuffed with nonsense, to be legitimized by keeping the description "science" as a mark of "quality". Perhaps they should cut out the middleman and simply call it "post-science"...

==Usage by cranks==
The concept has gained some currency in popular discourse recently. Due to its similarities to [[postmodern]] critiques of science, it has also been latched onto by [[crank]]s attempting to give their ideas a veneer of legitimacy much in the same way that postmodern rhetoric has.

Its most common usage is probably in the arena of [[global warming]], where the term is sometimes bandied about by [[denialist]]s.<ref>A few examples: [http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027748/the-real-reason-for-agw-post-normal-science/ This article] by [[James Delingpole]], [http://wottsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/pat-frank-the-new-science-of-climate-change/ Wotts Up on a Pat Frank column], [http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/ this post from a denialist blog.]</ref> It's also been picked up by some [[creationist]]s.<ref>[[Uncommon Descent]] [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/posr-normal-science-vs-science-based-on-facts/ jumps on the post-normal bandwagon.]</ref> This is especially [[irony|ironic]] considering that postmodernism is often a bogeyman for [[Right wing|right]]-[[wingnut]]s as well as the fact that post-normal science was coined by [[leftist]] academics and discussions revolving around it often read like watered-down [[Paul Feyerabend]] or [[Bruno Latour]].

==See also==
*[[Sound science]]

==External links==
*[http://postnormaltimes.net/wpblog/ Post-normal times]
*[http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/mar/14/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange The appliance of science], Mike Hulme
*[http://deepclimate.org/2011/02/07/post-normal-meltdown-in-lisbon-part-1/ Post-normal meltdown in Lisbon], Deep Climate
*[http://shewonk.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/post-normal-science-or-pseudo-sort-of-science/ Post-normal science or (pseudo-) sort of science?], Policy Lass

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Global warming]]
[[Category:Neologisms]]
[[Category:Political theory]]
[[Category:Postmodernism]]
[[Category:Science]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]

Categories: Economics, Environmentalism, Global warming, Neologisms, Political theory, Postmodernism, Science, Pseudoscience, Philosophy of science