科学、不确定性和社会:超越争论文化到共同愿景

Q3 Agricultural and Biological Sciences
R. Costanza
{"title":"科学、不确定性和社会:超越争论文化到共同愿景","authors":"R. Costanza","doi":"10.37773/ees.v2i2.70","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Practical problem-solving in complex societies requires the integration of three elements: (1) active and ongoing envisioning of both how the world works and how we would like the world to be, (2) systematic analysis appropriate to and consistent with the vision and (3) implementation appropriate to the vision. Scientists generally focus on the second step, but integrating all three is essential for both good science and effective, democratic decision-making. Subjective values enter the vision of broad social goals and the pre-analytic vision that necessarily precedes any form of scientific analysis. Because of this need for vision, completely objective scientific analysis is impossible. To better support democratic decision-making, scholars of all varieties need to acknowledge the need to engage more directly in all three elements of the process while sharing their knowledge of how the world works and bringing their understanding of uncertainty more effectively to the table. This more integrated role of the scholars can help overcome the currently widespread denial of critical knowledge about how the world works, especially about climate, wellbeing, and evolution, and support better, more democratic decision-making about how we would like the world to be and how to get there.","PeriodicalId":34130,"journal":{"name":"Ecology Economy and Society - The INSEE Journal","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Science, Uncertainty, and Society: Getting Beyond the Argument Culture to Shared Visions\",\"authors\":\"R. Costanza\",\"doi\":\"10.37773/ees.v2i2.70\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Practical problem-solving in complex societies requires the integration of three elements: (1) active and ongoing envisioning of both how the world works and how we would like the world to be, (2) systematic analysis appropriate to and consistent with the vision and (3) implementation appropriate to the vision. Scientists generally focus on the second step, but integrating all three is essential for both good science and effective, democratic decision-making. Subjective values enter the vision of broad social goals and the pre-analytic vision that necessarily precedes any form of scientific analysis. Because of this need for vision, completely objective scientific analysis is impossible. To better support democratic decision-making, scholars of all varieties need to acknowledge the need to engage more directly in all three elements of the process while sharing their knowledge of how the world works and bringing their understanding of uncertainty more effectively to the table. This more integrated role of the scholars can help overcome the currently widespread denial of critical knowledge about how the world works, especially about climate, wellbeing, and evolution, and support better, more democratic decision-making about how we would like the world to be and how to get there.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecology Economy and Society - The INSEE Journal\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecology Economy and Society - The INSEE Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v2i2.70\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecology Economy and Society - The INSEE Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v2i2.70","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在复杂的社会中实际解决问题需要三个要素的整合:(1)积极和持续地设想世界是如何运作的,以及我们希望世界是怎样的;(2)适合并符合愿景的系统分析;(3)适合愿景的实施。科学家通常关注第二步,但是整合这三个步骤对于良好的科学和有效的民主决策都是必不可少的。主观价值进入了广泛的社会目标视野和必然先于任何形式的科学分析的前分析视野。由于这种对视觉的需要,完全客观的科学分析是不可能的。为了更好地支持民主决策,各类学者都需要承认,有必要更直接地参与这一过程的所有三个要素,同时分享他们对世界如何运作的知识,并更有效地将他们对不确定性的理解带到谈判桌上。学者的这种更综合的角色可以帮助克服目前对世界如何运作的关键知识的普遍否认,特别是关于气候、福祉和进化的关键知识,并支持更好、更民主的决策,决定我们对世界的期望以及如何实现这一目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Science, Uncertainty, and Society: Getting Beyond the Argument Culture to Shared Visions
Practical problem-solving in complex societies requires the integration of three elements: (1) active and ongoing envisioning of both how the world works and how we would like the world to be, (2) systematic analysis appropriate to and consistent with the vision and (3) implementation appropriate to the vision. Scientists generally focus on the second step, but integrating all three is essential for both good science and effective, democratic decision-making. Subjective values enter the vision of broad social goals and the pre-analytic vision that necessarily precedes any form of scientific analysis. Because of this need for vision, completely objective scientific analysis is impossible. To better support democratic decision-making, scholars of all varieties need to acknowledge the need to engage more directly in all three elements of the process while sharing their knowledge of how the world works and bringing their understanding of uncertainty more effectively to the table. This more integrated role of the scholars can help overcome the currently widespread denial of critical knowledge about how the world works, especially about climate, wellbeing, and evolution, and support better, more democratic decision-making about how we would like the world to be and how to get there.
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
Ecology Economy and Society - The INSEE Journal
Ecology Economy and Society - The INSEE Journal Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Forestry
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信