2015 05 26 de marchi chambery know4_drr
-
Upload
know4drr -
Category
Environment
-
view
158 -
download
2
Transcript of 2015 05 26 de marchi chambery know4_drr
KNOW4DRR Final Conference
Chambery 26-‐27 May 2015
Bruna De Marchi, Politecnico di Milano Uncertain)es and ignorance in DRR and CCA: how manageable? A perspec(ve from the Politecnico of Milano team
… connaissant la force et les ac>ons du feu, de l'eau, de l'air,
des astres, des cieux, et de tous les autres corps qui nous
environnent, aussi dis>nctement que nous connaissons les
divers mé>ers de nos ar>sans, nous les pourrions employer
en même façon à tous les usages auxquels ils sont propres, et
ainsi nous rendre comme maîtres et possesseurs de la
nature. René Descartes (1596-‐1650)
Discours de la méthode, sixième par>e (1637)
POLIMI del 3.2: Two preliminary questions in the search of knowledge management systems for crises and emergencies: 1. What is knowledge?
2. What is knowledge in the domain of crisis and emergency management?
(Pyramid after Ackoff 1988)
DATA
INFORMATION
KNOWLEDGE
WISDOM
PoliMi-‐Deliverable 3.2
• Explora>on of reflec>ons around knowledge. • Knowledge conceived as process, not an item or a commodity that can be transferred.
• Scien>fic inves>ga>on as one among the many ways to create new knowledge.
• Necessity to recognize (acknowledge and disclose) ignorance.
Findings and learning from workshops and living labs in KNOW4DRR
.
• Different interpreta>on of problems at the roots of risks and disasters.
• Different perspec>ves and ideas about type and priori>za>on of mi>ga>on and response measures, including different understandings of knowledge and safety.
• “Nego>a>on” about the former a crucial preliminary step to reach agreement about the la^er.
Naomi Oreskes, (2015) “How Earth Science Has Become a Social Science” Historical Social Research 40, 2: 246-‐270
DOI: 10.12759/hsr.40.2015.2.246-‐270
Oreskes shows that, in the case of climate change and earthquake con>ngency planning, the dimension of the “social” exceeds natural science strictly speaking. In my view: • her (tle is somewhat misleading (or perhaps just provoca(ve) • earth science has not become a social science (even if
some(mes it pretends to be) • it’s not desirable that it becomes one • definitely a trend can be iden(fied towards mutual
collabora(on/interest (possibly also out of selfish reasons) • a contrary trend exist, vindica(ng separa(on (and hierarchy) • a “meta discussion” is urgent between natural and social
scien(sts.
POLIMI Deliverable 3.2
4.1. Defining and iden)fying ignorance • It is not just a ma^er of uncertain>es, but of wider areas of epistemic lack of understanding of some>mes crucial hazards’ mechanisms or forms of vulnerability.
• Others areas are beyond our capacity to iden(fy. We cannot be aware of their existence.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2011) h^p://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?
transcrip>d=2636 • … there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. • … there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are
some things we do not know. • … there are also unknown unknowns -‐-‐ the ones we don't know
we don't know
My comment: There are many things we incorrectly believe we know My note: Others than Rumsfeld have suggested a similar dis(nc(on (earlier, beMer ar(culated, …). For the purpose of this short presenta(on I consider this simple and effec(ve.
Le doute n’est pas une condi>on agréable, mais la cer>tude est absurde. [Doubt is not a pleasant condi>on, but certainty is absurd]
Voltaire 1694-‐1788 LeMre, à Frédéric II, roi de Prusse, 6 avril 1767 As quoted – in English-‐ by J. A. Curry and P.J. Webster “Climate science and the uncertainty Monster”, American Meteorological Society Dec. 2011, pp. 1667-‐1682 The “uncertainty monster” is a concept introduced by Van der Sluijs. J. P., 2005: Uncertainty as a monster in the science–policy interface: Four coping strategies. Water Sci. Technol., 52, 87–92.
Findings and learning from workshops and living labs in KNOW4DRR
Any set of tools for knowledge management in the field of risk/disaster will need to adapt to systems that are by defini>on open and where goals are only loosely commonly defined. Knowledge management may work only within a community of prac>ce (i.e. no general rules/prac>ces/toolkits good for all occasions) A somewhat paradoxical ques>on: Is that rule [that there are no general rules] a general rule? A prac>cal ques>on Who is included in/excluded from a community of prac>ce