Niiniluoto recognizes that futures discourse is a form of directed cultural evolution: "an artifact that is created by human actions." (Niiniluoto, 2001: 375). His arguments highlight, ironically, how transmitted ideas evolve through mutation. He prefers "the patterns of the emergence of new scientific specialties" (Niiniluoto, 2001: 371) yet offers few in-depth analyses of how new sciences emerge through memetic replication, group selection and paradigm shifts. This is how scientific principles that are discovered, refined and actualized. His focus on defining futures as "new form of planning" (Niiniluoto, 2001: 375) and replacing the term "descriptive science" with "decision science" (Niiniluoto, 2001: 372-373) has already framed the terms of his 'debate'. Ravetz counters with "highly politicised" examples (Ravetz, 2002: 202) from the "pop-Darwinian disciplines" and the "Gaia hypothesis" as a form of "the ecological way of thinking." (Ravetz, 2002: 200).

Adopting Simon's definition consigns the spectrum of critical/epistemological futures to the dustbin of history. It enables Niiniluoto to bypass contributions from hermeneutics and critical theory that might have prompted him to "reflect critically upon the more-or-less arbitrary conditions" and "skewed power relations" of applied futures (Slaughter, 1988: 20). By adopting Simon's definition of "decision science", Niiniluoto offers a prescription of things "ought to be" while deleting who decides this criteria. An ongoing engagement with hermeneutics and critical theory reveals that the pursuit of scientific objectivity cannot be separated from its sociopolitical origins or the wider context (normative culture, language and tradition) that are embedded within applied research and individual projects (Slaughter, 1988: 16). Ravetz wittily sums this up as a shift from "the traditional grail of Truth" to "the criterion of Quality." (Ravetz, 2002: 203).

Ikka Niiniluoto's Cognitive Biases

Niiniluoto's cognitive bias is also glaringly evident when he misrepresents Platoˇ¦s definition of knowledge as meaning "the same as justified true belief" (Niiniluoto, 2001: 372). Plato actually distinguished between pistis and eikasia (preconventional emotion and instinct), dianoia (conventional intellect) and noesis (postconventional insight). Thus Niiniluoto also avoids Slaughter's discussion of the foresight principle and the prospects for developing a wisdom culture. His disavowal is a reaction to earlier attempts to codify futures research as scientific laws (Niiniluoto, 2001: 372).

Given his private support for humanist values such as Ossip Flechtheim's emancipatory function (Niiniluoto, 2001: 374), Niiniluoto's dismissal of the activist-emancipatory tradition remains unconvincing. The original research emphasis of "decision science" has been relegated to the "impoverished margins" of academe (Ravetz, 2002: 202). Debate within the anti-globalist and environmental movements has also shown that laypersons can challenge experts, contribute to forming policies and deconstructing hidden ideologies (Ravetz, 2002: 202). Ravetz defines the scientific battleground as being fought "between reductionist corporate science assuming total certainty and control, and holistic environmental/critical science concerned with uncertainty and irreparable harm." (Ravetz, 2002: 202-203). Critiques of "decision science", consequently, parallel fears that the "professionalising" of futures will limit dissenting voices and alternate visions.

Wendell Bell Exits the Labyrinth

Wendell Bell proposes three solutions to the art-science schism and the post-positivist revolt. The first is a recognition that many pioneers, notably Daniel Bell and Bertrand de Jouvenal, felt "that the futures field by its very nature cannot be a science . . . Moreover, many working futurists today, perhaps a majority, would agree that futures studies is an art." (Bell, 1997: 167). Yet Bell concluded that artists, unlike scientists, "are not obligated by their commitment to art to tell the truth." (Bell, 1997: 172). This ignores the domain of Sacred Art (which does hold this obligation) and probably denotes the lingering influence of post-Dada cynicism and Pop commerciality. Bell's insight suggests that the art-science schism is an inter-generational paradigm shift still in-progress and that a new generation of futurists may have different orientations.

The second solution Bell offers is to replace Niiniluoto's "decision science" with an "action science" orientation (Bell, 1997: 181) that enables the fusion of scientific methods--"conditionals, counterfactuals, dispositionals, theoretical speculations, creative formulations of hypotheses, and predictions"--with the awareness of psychological, economic, cultural and sociopolitical implications of forecasts (Bell, 1997: 179, 182).

Finally, Bell navigates out of the post-positivist cul-de-sac through Critical Realism, which defines science as "a body of linguistic or numerical statements about the nature of reality," (Bell, 1997: 207), acknowledges sensory knowledge, personal and social biases, and the simultaneous evolution of discourse "by small continuous additions and discontinuous paradigms." (Bell, 1997: 208). Critical Realism appeals to Bell, post-l'affaire Sokal, because it combines empirical logic, a construction of social reality, "the conjectural aspects of knowledge, the many threats to validity, and limitations to knowing with certitude." (Bell, 1997: 208).

Conclusion: The Dawning of Postconventional Insight

Resolving the art-science schism involves reframing the Aristotelian "either-or" question into a non-Aristotelian formulation. Proponents of the critical futures tradition have recognized the need for a "variety of criteria to assess knowledge." (Slaughter, 1988: 16). One regenerative solution to the art-science schism may lie in expanding the global scope of futures and appreciating its trans-civilization knowledge base. To-date, futures discourse has been molded by existential knowledge of the human condition and the past, and by the "images, beliefs, goals, values and intentions" of its practitioners (Bell, 1997: 174-179). The current search for a 'Theory of Everything' and investigation of postconventional insight will replace the art-science schism with a more inclusive framework. The trans-disciplinary focus of futures studies may be closer to Ken Wilber's synthesis and Edward O. Wilson's consilience than the separation implied by Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.

Select Bibliography

Bell, Wendell (1997). Foundations of Future Studies (volume one). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Niiniluoto, Ilkka (2001). "Future Studies: Science or Art?" Futures 33: 371-377.

Ravetz, Jerry (2002). "The Challenge Beyond Orthodox Science." Futures 34: 200ˇV203.

Slaughter, Richard (1988). Recovering the Future. Clayton [Australia]: Monash University Graduate School of Environmental Science.

Slaughter, Richard (1999). Futures for the Third Millennium: Enabling the Forward View. St Leonards [Australia]: Prospect Media.

The views expressed above represent the writer and not necessarily those of The Disinformation Company Ltd.