Has Science Ever Been “Normal”? A Reply to “How is Post-Normal Science Possible?” by Lada Shipovalova

Abstract

The article questions the concept of post-normal science and emphasizes that despite the declarative detachment from social practice and freedom from politics, de facto science has always been social. On the one hand, the scientific community has always been aristocratic. The “classical ethos” of science presupposes openness and equality on conditions that require enormous efforts and self-sacrifice, this equality is beyond the norm, because a “normal” scientist is, as K. Popper noted, mediocrity. On the other hand, scientists at all times have taken an active social position, and the development of science has always been closely intertwined with social practices and the political process, as is well shown by T. Porter, L. Pinto, S. Shapin and S. Schaffer. From this point of view, science has always been post-normal – the “solutions” are always “urgent”, and the corresponding “stakes” are invariably “high”. However, the aristocracy of the scientific ethos and the declarative isolation of the scientific community from policy and politics are of fundamental importance for the reproduction of science, which practically cannot, but is morally obliged to remain outside of them. To help practice, the scientist must be impractical; to create a norm, a scientist must be abnormal.