A new blog has just come online, The Post-Normal Times. It is run by an impressive and diverse group. It is worth a bookmark. Here is how they desribe themselves:

“Who We Are”
Controversial public policy decisions that affect many people are unlikely to be accepted unless they are justified, somehow, by those who make them. Often, this is done by invoking some form of authority. For example, in a senate hearing, James Watt – former US Secretary of the Interior – once invoked the rapture when he said “after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back” to explain why he was giving away public lands. Others invoke science, which is at its best when, like Galileo, it challenges existing beliefs, and debunks myths, and, also like Galileo, gets corrected when wrong, as was his theory of the tides. At its worst, science provides support for decisions that have already been made, resting on hubris and on myths that must also be debunked, such as the delusion – also attributed to Galileo – that given enough resources, it can explain all things and provide certainty. It is also important to recognize that science is just one of many ways of understanding a world in which changes are increasingly a consequence of human beliefs and behavior. The capacity to respond to complex problems rests on an understanding of this changing context, without which scientific explanations and technical solutions are likely to be irrelevant no matter how precise.


Clarifying various forms of uncertainty is critical to managing public expectations, and maintaining or re-establishing public trust in science. It is also expected to better engage the public, as citizens, in democratic decision-making processes, in which a major area of uncertainty is whether their participation will even make any difference in the final outcome. When science supports high stakes policy commitments, this kind of broader engagement is also what makes it possible to detect and correct errors.

The Post-Normal Times is dedicated to improving the quality of public participation in science-based policy decisions related to the conundrums presented by problems of environmentally sustainable development, by providing multiple and constructive perspectives on complex and controversial science and policy issues. A central focus will be on justifications provided for controversial high-stakes decisions that pertain to complex problems such as climate change, in which the disadvantages of making trade-offs fall disproportionately on those excluded from the decision-making process. But we will also cover post-normal aspects of culture and politics that are the context of science. We particularly seek out the kinds of information often missed in formal reports and normal news sources, for failure to fit into standard categories and established story lines.

Special themes preliminarily identified for coverage include:

• Demythification of science used to support specific and selected policy decisions.
• “Ignorance of ignorance” – i.e., blindspots
• Uses and abuses of uncertainty in decision-making, such as the use of science to avoid actually making a decision
• Paradox and contradiction in existing policies
• Living in Post-Normal Times- a space for reports and commentary on the social and cultural context of science and policy.

This may include essays, reviews of selected books, movies and artists that present emerging perspectives, and scenarios of the future.

Submissions are welcome. Interested contributors should send an e-mail inquiry in advance to the editor at submissions@postnormaltimes.net, presenting a proposed angle for the contribution, so as to insure it fits within the scope of the PNT, and brief biographical information. We also encourage readers to participate by commenting on already posted material.”