听科学的!科学?地球危机时期的再生研究

A. Raffoul
{"title":"听科学的!科学?地球危机时期的再生研究","authors":"A. Raffoul","doi":"10.3389/frsus.2023.1115238","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In situations where scientists disagree, which science should decision-makers listen to? This article argues that we should listen to “regenerative research”, that is, research (1) whose objective is to regenerate our relationship to the land and to each other (rather than dominating nature), (2) whose worldview acknowledges the interconnection between humans and non-humans (rather than assuming a separation between humanity and nature), and (3) whose processes are democratized (instead of including but a narrow circle of researchers). We should listen to regenerative science not because it is suited to the interests of politicians or activists, but because it is most likely to be beneficent, rigorous, and objective. In addition to granting scientists new responsibilities, such as engaging in public action, the climate and ecological crises therefore also require us to critically reflect on the core of our work: the knowledge we generate.","PeriodicalId":253319,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sustainability","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Listen to the science! Which science? Regenerative research for times of planetary crises\",\"authors\":\"A. Raffoul\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frsus.2023.1115238\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In situations where scientists disagree, which science should decision-makers listen to? This article argues that we should listen to “regenerative research”, that is, research (1) whose objective is to regenerate our relationship to the land and to each other (rather than dominating nature), (2) whose worldview acknowledges the interconnection between humans and non-humans (rather than assuming a separation between humanity and nature), and (3) whose processes are democratized (instead of including but a narrow circle of researchers). We should listen to regenerative science not because it is suited to the interests of politicians or activists, but because it is most likely to be beneficent, rigorous, and objective. In addition to granting scientists new responsibilities, such as engaging in public action, the climate and ecological crises therefore also require us to critically reflect on the core of our work: the knowledge we generate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":253319,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1115238\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frsus.2023.1115238","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在科学家意见不一致的情况下,决策者应该听从哪一种科学?本文认为,我们应该听取“再生研究”,即:(1)其目标是再生我们与土地和彼此之间的关系(而不是支配自然),(2)其世界观承认人与非人类之间的联系(而不是假设人与自然之间的分离),以及(3)其过程是民主化的(而不是包括但狭隘的研究人员圈子)。我们应该倾听再生科学,不是因为它符合政治家或活动家的利益,而是因为它最有可能是有益的、严谨的和客观的。因此,除了赋予科学家新的责任,例如参与公共行动之外,气候和生态危机还要求我们批判性地反思我们工作的核心:我们产生的知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Listen to the science! Which science? Regenerative research for times of planetary crises
In situations where scientists disagree, which science should decision-makers listen to? This article argues that we should listen to “regenerative research”, that is, research (1) whose objective is to regenerate our relationship to the land and to each other (rather than dominating nature), (2) whose worldview acknowledges the interconnection between humans and non-humans (rather than assuming a separation between humanity and nature), and (3) whose processes are democratized (instead of including but a narrow circle of researchers). We should listen to regenerative science not because it is suited to the interests of politicians or activists, but because it is most likely to be beneficent, rigorous, and objective. In addition to granting scientists new responsibilities, such as engaging in public action, the climate and ecological crises therefore also require us to critically reflect on the core of our work: the knowledge we generate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信