During the 2016 US presidential election, the majority of discussion on the social website ‘I fucking love science’ claimed that ‘climate change is a matter of science, truth and facts but “they”, the deniers, do not understand the science’, invoking a polarized version of the modern model of legitimation, entangled with the deficit model. This article challenges this narrative to open a dialogue space and identify criteria for dealing with the climate issue under conditions of high uncertainty and complexity. Analysis reveals how the dialogue might experience a stalemate when criticisms against this narrative are based on the need to show an inflicted harm for which this narrative can be blamed. Simultaneously, the same condition of uncertainty disarms a core principle from the modern model—that legimate action is to be based on predicting catastrophe in climate change. At stake is an essential part of the present: our praxis.
ArendtH (2006) Los orígenes del totalitarismo [The Origins of Totalitarianism] (trans. SolanaG). Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
3.
ArmingeonKGuthmannK (2014) Democracy in crisis? The declining support for national democracy in European countries, 2007–2011. European Journal of Political Research53(3): 423–442.
4.
BauerMW (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science – Discourse and comparative evidence. Science, Technology and Society14(2): 221–240.
5.
BauerMWAllumNMillerS (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science16(1): 79–95.
6.
BolerMDavisE (2018) The affective politics of the ‘post-truth’ era: Feeling rules and networked subjectivity. Emotion, Space and Society27: 75–85.
7.
CallinicosA (2017) Britain and Europe on the geopolitical roller-coaster. Competition and Change21(3): 185–198.
CollinsHMPinchT (1998) The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CreswellJW (2014) Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixes Methods Approaches, 4th edn.London: SAGE.
11.
Dotti SaniGMMagistroB (2016) Increasingly unequal? The economic crisis, social inequalities and trust in the European Parliament in 20 European countries. European Journal of Political Research55: 246–264.
12.
FoucaultM (2008) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978-79 (ed. MSenellar; trans. BurchellG). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
13.
FuntowiczSRavetzJ (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures25: 739–755.
14.
FuntowiczSRavetzJ (2000) La ciencia postnormal: ciencia con la gente [Post-Normal Science: Science With Citizens]. Barcelona: Icaria.
15.
FuntowiczSSaltelliA (2017) What is science’s crisis really about?Futures91: 5–11.
16.
FuntowiczSStrandR (2007) De la demostración experta al diálogo participativo [From expert demonstration to participatory dialogue]. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad8(3): 97–113.
17.
FuntowiczSStrandR (2011) Change and commitment: Beyond risk and responsibility. Journal or Risk Research14(8): 995–1003.
18.
FuntowiczSRavetzJSaltelliA (2016) Who will solve the crisis in science? In: BenessiaAFuntowiczSGiampietroMGuimarães PereiraARavetzRSaltelliAStrandR, et al (eds) The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge. Tempe, AZ: Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, pp. 1–30.
19.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77: 167–187.
20.
HagendijkR (2004) The public understanding of science and public participation in regulated worlds. Minerva42(1): 41–59.
21.
HusserlE (1954) The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (trans. CarrD). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
22.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2019). Available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/ (accessed 20 January 2019).
23.
IrwinAWynneB (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
JasanoffS (2005) Designs on Nature Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
25.
JasanoffS (2012) Science and Public Reason. London: Routledge.
26.
LatourB (2007) Nunca fuimos modernos [We Have Never Been Modern]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Siglo XXI Editores.
27.
LatourB (2018) Down to Earth: Politics in the New Climatic Regime. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
28.
LewandowskySEckerUCookJ (2017) Beyond misinformation: Understanding and coping with the ‘post-truth’ era. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition6(4): 353–369.
29.
MacnaghtenPKearnesMBWynneB (2005) Nanotechnology, governance, and public deliberation: What role for the social sciences?Science Communication27(2): 268–291.
30.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Examining the Mistrust of Science: Proceedings of a Workshop–in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
31.
NietoA (2016) Science in the Public Sphere. A History of Lay Knowledge and Expertise. Abingdon: Routledge.
32.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2015) Scientific Advice for Policy Making: The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists (Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers Nº 21). Paris: OECD Publishing.
33.
PauschM (2014) Democratization and elitism in the EU: Two opposing trends. European Journal of Futures Research2: 56.
RommetveitKStrandRFjellandRFuntowiczS (2013) What can history teach us about the prospects of a European research area? Report procured by the European Commission-Joint Research Centre, Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/38629678.pdf (accessed 17 April 2021).
38.
SarewitzD (2004) How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy7(5): 385–403.
ShapinS (1998) The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
41.
ShapinSSchafferS (2011) Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
StilgoeJLockSJWilsdonJ (2014) Why should we promote public engagement with science?Public Understanding of Science23(1): 4–15.
43.
StrandR (2001) The role of risk assessments in the governance of genetically modified organisms in agriculture. Journal of Hazardous Materials86: 187–204.
44.
StrandR (2013) Science, Utopia and the human condition. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy9: 110–124.
45.
StrandR (2015) Doubt has been eliminated. In: BenessiaAFuntowiczSGiampietroMGuimarães PereiraARavetzRSaltelliA, et al. (eds) The Rightful Place of Science: Science on the Verge. Tempe, AZ: Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, pp. 189–208.
46.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2016) The future of scientific advice to the United Nations: A summary report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations from the Scientific Advisory Board. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000245801 (accessed 24 January 2020).
47.
Van der SluijsJ (2012) Uncertainty and dissent in climate risk assessment: A post-normal perspective. Nature and Culture7(2): 174–195.
48.
WynneB (2006) Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science-hitting the notes, but missing the music?Community Genet9(3): 211–220.
49.
ZimanJ (1991) Public understanding of science. Science, Technology and Human Values16(1): 99–105.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
