Understanding “plausibility”: A relational approach to the anticipatory heuristics of future scenarios

Abstract The creation of future scenarios is considered a valuable methodological tool for shaping the anticipatory governance of emerging technologies. Although plausibility is presented as a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for assessing future scenarios, there is no consensus on its meaning or operationalization. The main objective of this paper is to contribute to clarifying the meaning of plausibility and the theoretical role it plays in the application of scenario building practices to technological governance. In particular, I will argue that plausibility can be understood as a methodological criterion and as an anticipatory-enabling ‘epistemic device.’ In this sense, I support the value of theoretically distinguishing between the methodological-limiting and the anticipatory-enabling roles of plausibility in foresight practices.

[1]  Paul Dragos Aligica,et al.  Scenarios and the Growth of Knowledge: Notes on the Epistemic Element in Scenario Building , 2005 .

[2]  Wendell Bell,et al.  An epistemology for the futures field: Problems and possibilities of prediction , 1989 .

[3]  Stephen Procter,et al.  Scenarios and counterfactuals as modal narratives , 2009 .

[4]  P. Duin.  Qualitative Futures Research for Innovation , 2006 .

[5]  Thomas P. Seager,et al.  Anticipatory life-cycle assessment for responsible research and innovation , 2014 .

[6]  Arie Rip,et al.  Constructive Technology Assessment and Socio-Technical Scenarios. , 2008 .

[7]  Cynthia Selin,et al.  Negotiating Plausibility: Intervening in the Future of Nanotechnology , 2011, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[8]  Nicholas Rescher,et al.  Plausible reasoning , 1976 .

[9]  Muhammad Amer,et al.  A review of scenario planning , 2013 .

[10]  J. Stilgoe,et al.  Developing a framework for responsible innovation* , 2013, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[11]  Ziauddin Sardar,et al.  The Namesake: Futures; futures studies; futurology; futuristic; foresight—What's in a name? , 2010 .

[12]  Claudia Schwarz-Plaschg.  The Power of Analogies for Imagining and Governing Emerging Technologies , 2018, NanoEthics.

[13]  Arnim Wiek,et al.  Plausibility indications in future scenarios , 2013 .

[14]  Hyeonju Son,et al.  The history of Western futures studies: An exploration of the intellectual traditions and three-phase periodization , 2015 .

[15]  M. Jaeger.  A LOGIC FOR INDUCTIVE PROBABILISTIC REASONING , 2005 .

[16]  P. Thagard,et al.  Abductive Reasoning: Logic, Visual Thinking, and Coherence , 1997 .

[17]  Cynthia Selin,et al.  Plausibility and probability in scenario planning , 2014 .

[18]  A. Nordmann.  If and Then: A Critique of Speculative NanoEthics , 2007, The Ethics of Nanotechnology, Geoengineering and Clean Energy.

[19]  Cynthia Selin,et al.  Trust and the illusive force of scenarios , 2006 .

[20]  Ian Miles,et al.  The poverty of prediction , 1975 .

[21]  Lutz E. Schlange.  Scenarios: The art of strategic conversation , 1997 .

[22]  Rene Von Schomberg,et al.  Foresight Knowledge Assessment , 2007 .

[23]  Astrid Schwarz,et al.  Lure of the “Yes”: The Seductive Power of Technoscience , 2009 .

[24]  Christopher Groves,et al.  Performing and Governing the Future in Science and Technology , 2016 .

[25]  Ruud van der Helm,et al.  Towards a clarification of probability, possibility and plausibility: how semantics could help futures practice to improve , 2006 .

[26]  Nicholas J. Rowland,et al.  The scenario planning paradox , 2017 .

[27]  R. Byrne.  Précis of The Rational Imagination: How People Create Alternatives to Reality , 2007, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[28]  Ted Fuller,et al.  Constructing futures: A social constructionist perspective on foresight methodology , 2009 .

[29]  M. Fricker.  FORUM: Miranda FRICKER's Epistemic Injustice. Power and the Ethics of Knowing , 2008, THEORIA.

[30]  E. Michael Nussbaum,et al.  Plausibility Judgments in Conceptual Change and Epistemic Cognition , 2016 .

[31]  Marie-France Ehrlich,et al.  Aspects of Textual Continuity Psycholinguistic Approaches , 1991 .

[32]  M. Oudheusden.  Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond , 2014 .

[33]  A. Nordmann.  Responsible innovation, the art and craft of anticipation , 2014 .

[34]  Alfred Nordmann,et al.  A forensics of wishing: technology assessment in the age of technoscience , 2010, Poiesis Prax..

[35]  David H Guston,et al.  Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’ , 2014, Social Studies of Science.

[36]  Christopher Coenen,et al.  Visions and Ethics in Current Discourse on Human Enhancement , 2012 .

[37]  Stephen M. Millett,et al.  The future of scenarios: challenges and opportunities , 2003 .

[38]  John R. Josephson,et al.  Abductive inference : computation, philosophy, technology , 1994 .

[39]  Peter C. Bishop,et al.  The current state of scenario development: an overview of techniques , 2007 .

[40]  Cynthia Selin.  On not forgetting futures , 2014 .

[41]  Robert U. Ayres,et al.  Technological forecasting and long-range planning , 1969 .

[42]  C. Schneider,et al.  Responsibilization through visions , 2017 .

[43]  Guido Reger,et al.  Advantages and Disadvantages of Scenario Approaches for Strategic Foresight , 2005 .

[44]  N. Brown,et al.  Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science , 2000 .

[45]  John S. Walton,et al.  Scanning Beyond the Horizon: Exploring the Ontological and Epistemological Basis for Scenario Planning , 2008 .

[46]  Jenifer Sunrise Winter,et al.  Philosophical foundations for informing the future(S) through IS research , 2018, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[47]  Carla Alvial-Palavicino,et al.  The Future as Practice. A Framework to Understand Anticipation in Science and Technology , 2016 .