ON THE PROBLEMATIZATION OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE POST-NORMAL TIME
Keywords:
post-normal science; quality of knowledge; extended peer community; democratization of science; environmental awareness; sustainable development; socio-ecological systems.Abstract
This article examines the philosophical, methodological, and social foundations of the problematization of knowledge in the conditions of the post-normal era. Post-normal science is interpreted as a new model of scientific inquiry emerging in contexts marked by high uncertainty, value conflicts, complex socio-ecological systems, and large-scale risks. The study highlights the main differences between post-normal science and the model of “normal science,” emphasizing the shift from the search for absolute truth to the assurance of knowledge quality, the institutionalization of the extended peer community, and the epistemological as well as ethical significance of the democratization of science. Drawing on international and regional case studies, the article demonstrates the role of the post-normal approach in developing environmental awareness, strengthening trust in expert knowledge, and shaping sustainable development strategies. It concludes that post-normal science constitutes an important theoretical and practical paradigm for understanding and addressing contemporary ecological and social crises.
References
1. Funtowicz, S. O., Ravetz, J. R. Science for the Post-Normal Age // Futures. – 1993. – Vol. 25, № 7. – P. 739–755.
2. Wynne, B. Misunderstood Misunderstanding: Social Identities and Public Uptake of Science // Public Understanding of Science. – 1992. – Vol. 1, № 3. – P. 281–304.
3. Saltelli, A., Pereira, Â. G., van der Sluijs, J. P. [et al.] What Do I Make of Your Latinorum? Sensitivity Auditing of Mathematical Modelling // Environmental Science & Policy. – 2013. – Vol. 27. – P. 286–297.
4. Беркс, Ф. Священная экология / пер. с англ. В. Н. Кузнецова. – М.: Ноосфера, 2013. – 368 с.
5. Micklin, P. The Aral Sea Disaster // Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. – 2007. – Vol. 35. – P. 47–72.
6. Stirling, A. “Opening Up” and “Closing Down”: Power, Participation, and Pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology // Science, Technology, & Human Values. – 2008. – Vol. 33, № 2. – P. 262–294.
7. Гиббонс, М., Лимож, К., Новотны, Х. [и др.] Новое производство знания: Динамика науки и исследований в современных обществах / пер. с англ. А.А. Игнатьева. – М.: Логос, 2011. – 208 с.
8. Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J. R. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. – Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990. – 231 p.
9. Rittel, H. W. J., Webber, M. M. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning // Policy Sciences. – 1973. – Vol. 4, № 2. – P. 155–169.
10. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order / S. Jasanoff (ed.). – London; New York: Routledge, 2004. – 336 p.
