“The problem was not only the message, but also that they were were often completely way in over their heads with the role as mediator between nature and society.”
“The problem was not only the message, but also that they were were often completely way in over their heads with the role as mediator between nature and society.”
The reviewer seems to assume that the purpose of science is to facilitate ‘productive action’, rather than to produce understanding of the situation itself. Without a thorough understanding it is impossible to decide whether a problem even exists, what solutions are possible and cost-effective, let alone what ‘productive action’ can be done to alleviate it within the limits of our resources, and what priority this allocation of resources should have. Once science produces an ‘understanding’ (as determined by validated quatitative predictions from theory), everything done with that understanding is purely political.
Doesn’t sound like it adds much light from the article.