Periodic Reporting for period 1 - UN3 (Understanding Under Uncertainty: Symbiotic Relations Between the Storyline Approach and the Philosophy of Scientific Understanding)
Periodo di rendicontazione: 2023-12-20 al 2025-12-19
Decision-making on climate risks increasingly takes place under deep uncertainty, where traditional probabilistic approaches alone struggle to account for complex causal pathways, extreme events, and the plurality of values and knowledges involved. In recent years, the storyline approach has emerged within climate science – especially in the detection and attribution of extreme events – as a complementary framework that emphasises plausibility, causal pathways, and counterfactual reasoning. Despite its growing use, the epistemic status, legitimacy, and policy relevance of storyline-based understanding remain contested.
Against this background, the MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship project UN3 "Understanding Under Uncertainty" set out to examine the status of storyline-based scientific understanding and its potential contributions to more effective, legitimate, and just decision-making under deep uncertainty, particularly in the context of climate adaptation. The project operated at the intersection of philosophy of science and climate science, while introducing inter- and transdisciplinary components to enhance its broader academic and sociopolitical relevance. Throughout the project, Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) played a central role, particularly through engagement with philosophy of science, political philosophy, and ethics.
UN3 had three main objectives. First, it aimed to clarify and evaluate the epistemic status of storyline-based understanding in terms of its factivity, especially in comparison with more traditional probabilistic (or risk-based) approaches. Second, it sought to investigate how such forms of understanding can support effective and actionable decision-making, paying particular attention to the role of values in science and policy advice. Third, the project aimed to explore the transdisciplinary dimensions of storyline-based understanding, focusing on the integration of local knowledges and the promotion of epistemic justice in climate-related policymaking.
The project’s pathway to impact connects conceptual clarification to policy relevance. By legitimising storyline-based approaches as genuine forms of scientific understanding, developing normative frameworks for the legitimation of values, and proposing practical tools for inclusive policymaking, UN3 contributes to EU priorities on climate adaptation, democratic governance of science, and socially robust knowledge co-production. Its expected impacts span from advancing philosophical debates to informing climate adaptation policies that are more inclusive, legitimate, and responsive to uncertainty.
Against this background, the MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowship project UN3 "Understanding Under Uncertainty" set out to examine the status of storyline-based scientific understanding and its potential contributions to more effective, legitimate, and just decision-making under deep uncertainty, particularly in the context of climate adaptation. The project operated at the intersection of philosophy of science and climate science, while introducing inter- and transdisciplinary components to enhance its broader academic and sociopolitical relevance. Throughout the project, Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) played a central role, particularly through engagement with philosophy of science, political philosophy, and ethics.
UN3 had three main objectives. First, it aimed to clarify and evaluate the epistemic status of storyline-based understanding in terms of its factivity, especially in comparison with more traditional probabilistic (or risk-based) approaches. Second, it sought to investigate how such forms of understanding can support effective and actionable decision-making, paying particular attention to the role of values in science and policy advice. Third, the project aimed to explore the transdisciplinary dimensions of storyline-based understanding, focusing on the integration of local knowledges and the promotion of epistemic justice in climate-related policymaking.
The project’s pathway to impact connects conceptual clarification to policy relevance. By legitimising storyline-based approaches as genuine forms of scientific understanding, developing normative frameworks for the legitimation of values, and proposing practical tools for inclusive policymaking, UN3 contributes to EU priorities on climate adaptation, democratic governance of science, and socially robust knowledge co-production. Its expected impacts span from advancing philosophical debates to informing climate adaptation policies that are more inclusive, legitimate, and responsive to uncertainty.
The project was structured around three interrelated research work packages (WPs), combining philosophical analysis, interdisciplinary engagement with climate science, and transdisciplinary collaboration with policymakers and practitioners.
WP1 – The “Factivity” of Storyline-based Understanding. This work package focused on characterising storyline-based understanding, particularly with respect to its factive status, and on comparing it to risk-based approaches. The work involved a systematic review of both climate science literature on storylines and philosophical debates on scientific understanding, idealization, and counterfactual reasoning. This led to a detailed analysis of how storyline and risk-based approaches rely on non-veridical representations in systematically different ways. The main achievements include a comparative assessment of storyline-based and risk-based approaches, the development of a novel “transfactive” account of scientific understanding tailored to contexts of deep uncertainty, and a thesis of layered scientific explanations showing how multiple interpretative frameworks can jointly support explanation within a single scientific project.
WP2 – The “Effectiveness” of Storyline-based Understanding. This work package addressed the role of values in science and policy-relevant decision-making. Building on insights from philosophy of science and political theory, the work critically assessed dominant deliberative approaches and “alignment” strategies to the legitimation of values. This resulted in the formulation of an original agonistic framework for the legitimation of non-epistemic values in science, highlighting how disagreement and conflict can be productive rather than obstructive for effective decision-making under uncertainty.
WP3 – The “Transdisciplinarity” of Storyline-based Understanding. This work package examined how storyline-based understanding fosters engagement with local knowledges and how this engagement relates to epistemic justice. The work combined theoretical developments with collaborative, policy-oriented research. Its main achievements include a capabilities-based, sufficientarian account of epistemic justice and the co-development of a policy recommendation for EU climate adaptation, including an annotated prototype of an epistemic justice indicator designed to support the integration of local knowledges into policymaking processes.
Across all work packages, the project delivered substantial scientific outputs, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and policy-oriented documents, and successfully achieved its core scientific objectives.
WP1 – The “Factivity” of Storyline-based Understanding. This work package focused on characterising storyline-based understanding, particularly with respect to its factive status, and on comparing it to risk-based approaches. The work involved a systematic review of both climate science literature on storylines and philosophical debates on scientific understanding, idealization, and counterfactual reasoning. This led to a detailed analysis of how storyline and risk-based approaches rely on non-veridical representations in systematically different ways. The main achievements include a comparative assessment of storyline-based and risk-based approaches, the development of a novel “transfactive” account of scientific understanding tailored to contexts of deep uncertainty, and a thesis of layered scientific explanations showing how multiple interpretative frameworks can jointly support explanation within a single scientific project.
WP2 – The “Effectiveness” of Storyline-based Understanding. This work package addressed the role of values in science and policy-relevant decision-making. Building on insights from philosophy of science and political theory, the work critically assessed dominant deliberative approaches and “alignment” strategies to the legitimation of values. This resulted in the formulation of an original agonistic framework for the legitimation of non-epistemic values in science, highlighting how disagreement and conflict can be productive rather than obstructive for effective decision-making under uncertainty.
WP3 – The “Transdisciplinarity” of Storyline-based Understanding. This work package examined how storyline-based understanding fosters engagement with local knowledges and how this engagement relates to epistemic justice. The work combined theoretical developments with collaborative, policy-oriented research. Its main achievements include a capabilities-based, sufficientarian account of epistemic justice and the co-development of a policy recommendation for EU climate adaptation, including an annotated prototype of an epistemic justice indicator designed to support the integration of local knowledges into policymaking processes.
Across all work packages, the project delivered substantial scientific outputs, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters, and policy-oriented documents, and successfully achieved its core scientific objectives.
UN3 advances the state of the art in theoretical, normative, and practical respects. Theoretically, it provides one of the first systematic philosophical accounts of storyline-based understanding, while introducing a novel transfactive account of scientific understanding. In addition, the original thesis of layered model explanations offers new perspectives for analysing scientific explanatory practices across disciplines.
Normatively, the project goes beyond existing approaches to the legitimation of values in science by proposing an agonistic framework for value legitimation, explicitly designed for contexts marked by persistent disagreement and pluralism. This represents a significant shift from consensus-oriented frameworks and opens new avenues for research on science–policy interactions. The project also delivers a novel theoretical account of epistemic justice, grounded in the notion of capabilities and employing a sufficientarian criterion.
Practically, the project delivers a concrete policy-relevant innovation: the epistemic justice indicator for climate adaptation policymaking. This tool translates abstract normative principles into an operational framework that can be used by policymakers to assess inclusion, participation, and recognition of diverse knowledges.
Further uptake and impact would benefit from:
• empirical testing of the epistemic justice indicator in additional policy domains;
• integration of the agonistic framework into transdisciplinary climate adaptation research;
• collaboration with EU institutions for standardisation and further dissemination; and
• continued interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research through international collaborations linking philosophy of science, climate science, and climate governance.
Normatively, the project goes beyond existing approaches to the legitimation of values in science by proposing an agonistic framework for value legitimation, explicitly designed for contexts marked by persistent disagreement and pluralism. This represents a significant shift from consensus-oriented frameworks and opens new avenues for research on science–policy interactions. The project also delivers a novel theoretical account of epistemic justice, grounded in the notion of capabilities and employing a sufficientarian criterion.
Practically, the project delivers a concrete policy-relevant innovation: the epistemic justice indicator for climate adaptation policymaking. This tool translates abstract normative principles into an operational framework that can be used by policymakers to assess inclusion, participation, and recognition of diverse knowledges.
Further uptake and impact would benefit from:
• empirical testing of the epistemic justice indicator in additional policy domains;
• integration of the agonistic framework into transdisciplinary climate adaptation research;
• collaboration with EU institutions for standardisation and further dissemination; and
• continued interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research through international collaborations linking philosophy of science, climate science, and climate governance.