Scholz Roland W, Wellmer Friedrich W
Department of Knowledge and Information Management, Danube University Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 39, 3500 Krems, Austria.
Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Universitaetsstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
Sustain Sci. 2021;16(6):2069-2086. doi: 10.1007/s11625-021-01006-w. Epub 2021 Aug 26.
There is increasing demand for science to contribute to solving societal problems (solutionism). Thereby, scientists may become normative activists for solving certain problems (advocacy). When doing this, they may insufficiently differentiate between scientific and political modes of reasoning and validation (de-differentiationism), which is sometimes linked to questionable forms of utilizing the force of facts (German: ). Scientific findings are simplified and communicated in such a way that they acquire a status as unfalsifiable and absolutely true (truth to power). This becomes critical if the consistency and validation of the findings are questionable and scientific models underlying science activists' actions are doubtful, oversimplified, or incorrect. Herein, we exemplarily elaborate how the integrity of science is endangered by normative solutionist and sociopolitically driven transition management and present mineral scarcity claims that ignore that reserves or resources are dynamic geotechnological-socioeconomic entities. We present the main mineral scarcity models and their fallacious assumptions. We then discuss the phosphorus scarcity fallacy, which is of particular interest as phosphorus is non-substitutable and half of all current food production depends on fertilizers (and thus phosphorus). We show that phosphorus scarcity claims are based on integrating basic geoeconomic knowledge and discuss cognitive and epistemological barriers and motivational and sociopolitical drivers promoting the scarcity fallacy, which affects high-level public media. This may induce unsustainable environmental action. Scientists as honest knowledge brokers should communicate the strengths but also the constraints and limits of scientific modeling and of applying it in reality.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11625-021-01006-w.
科学为解决社会问题(解决主义)做出贡献的需求日益增加。因此,科学家可能会成为解决某些问题的规范行动者(倡导)。在这样做时,他们可能没有充分区分科学和政治的推理及验证模式(去分化主义),这有时与利用事实力量的可疑形式有关(德语: )。科学发现被简化并以这样一种方式传播,即它们获得了不可证伪和绝对真实的地位(权力的真理)。如果研究结果的一致性和验证存在疑问,且科学行动者行动背后的科学模型值得怀疑、过于简化或不正确,这就会变得至关重要。在此,我们举例阐述规范的解决主义和社会政治驱动的转型管理如何危及科学的完整性,并提出忽视储量或资源是动态地质技术 - 社会经济实体的矿产稀缺主张。我们介绍了主要的矿产稀缺模型及其错误假设。然后我们讨论磷稀缺谬误,由于磷不可替代且当前所有粮食生产的一半依赖化肥(因而依赖磷),这一谬误尤其引人关注。我们表明,磷稀缺主张是基于整合基本的地缘经济知识,并讨论了认知和认识论障碍以及推动稀缺谬误的动机和社会政治驱动因素,这种谬误影响着高级别公共媒体。这可能会引发不可持续的环境行动。作为诚实知识中介的科学家应该传达科学建模的优势,以及在现实中应用它的限制和局限。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s11625 - 021 - 01006 - w获取的补充材料。