a. Wicked problems include values and talking about values can be difficult
examples from papers - but accentuate the pro and con statements
let's get people to eat local food to save energy
let's increase gas tax to cover pollution and carbon charges to environment
reducing consumption of new products such as fashions
save the salmon but loose some particular jobs
reduce lighting in the city to save energy but might be less safe on the streets
b. Participating in a dialog
In a pluralistic world, how do you answer awkward questions that are thrown at you sometimes.
What you really want is a diaologue, not a one-way question/answer situation or a single exchange.
a. First, be able to identify a disrespectful questions or scoffing. Maybe the question only has part scoff and can be repaired.
If a person is not respecting you, you have no ethical obligation to engage.
Find a nice way to ask the person to restate the question or statement or restate it for them. (Iroquois consensus approach)
Your commitment to pluralism doesn't mean that you have to respect every crackpot and ignorant dweeb. It means that you are commited to finding a solution to problems through and aggressive search for, and inclusion of, different perspectives on how to solve the problem.
b. Second, work to identify the underlying assumptions, values and theories that are behind the question.
How a person came to their current understanding helps characterize the assumptions.
World views are a good way to think about this.
Their view of what science, technology, and society are supposed to do is also important.
- types of science
- role of scientists in society
c. Third, try to work from a statement of agreement. For some people you might have to dig pretty deep to get to a previous platform of agreement. Such as the nature of science and a belief in cause and effect.
d. Fourth, if things get tense, let them talk.
often the pattern of a dialog
