AI 中文总结
探讨如何确定促进社会生态技术系统繁荣的风险科学研究方法，采用辩证方法重新审视风险科学中物理与社会等长期紧张关系，揭示未被充分探索的可能性，探索复杂风险科学的初步种子。
AI 中文摘要
繁荣是所有生物朝着美好实现自我——不仅是个体，也是集体，回答了‘我们如何相互依存并为彼此过上美好生活？’的问题。在科学和社会中，简化、隔离、专业化和固化的倾向阻碍了将繁荣概念作为指导原则。我们旨在确定一种促进社会生态技术系统（SETS）繁荣的风险科学研究方法。我们讨论了繁荣导向对风险科学领域的规范作用。我们探索了（风险）科学能否以一种能够引导社会走向更具韧性和繁荣未来的方式进行。我们的探索反映了繁荣本身的对话性质：审视传统上被认为完全对立的意识形态，并考虑它们之间的空间和对话中出现的情况。我们称之为辩证方法。在这个基于对话、多元主义和实用主义的范式中，我们重新审视风险科学中三个长期存在的紧张关系：物理|社会、决定论|不确定性、情境性|普遍性。通过复杂性科学的视角一起重新审视这些紧张关系，并明确关注塑造风险研究的规范承诺，揭示了该领域未被充分探索的可能性。与其他方面进行对话来审视它们，使我们能够探索所谓复杂风险科学的初步种子：相互依存、响应性、参与、多元主义、开放性和持续性。朝着繁荣世界的风险科学实施辩证范式将取决于创建复杂风险科学的集体，用精心管理的公地支持它们，并将关怀作为我们研究的核心。
英文摘要
Flourishing is the actualization of all beings toward their good -- not only individually but collectively, answering the question of `how do we live well with and for each other?'. In science as in society, the tendency to reduce, segregate, specialize, and settle has precluded embracing the concept of flourishing as a guiding principle. We aim to identify an approach to risk science research that promotes the flourishing of socio-ecological-technological systems (SETS). We discuss the normative role of an orientation toward flourishing for the field of risk science. We explore the possibility that (risk) science could be done in a way that is capable of pointing society toward a different future, one more resilient and more capable of flourishing. Our exploration mirrors the conversational nature of flourishing itself: examine ideologies traditionally believed to be rigidly in opposition and consider what emerges in the space(s) and conversation between them. We call this a dialectical approach. Within this paradigm grounded in conversation, pluralism, and pragmatism, we revisit three longstanding tensions in risk science: physical$|$social, determinism$|$uncertainty, contextuality$|$generality. Although these tensions are not new, revisiting them together through the lens of complexity science, and with explicit attention to the normative commitments that shape risk research, reveals underexplored possibilities for the field. Examining them in conversation with the other allows us to explore the provisional seeds for what might be termed complex risk science: interdependence, responsivity, participation, pluralism, openness, and ongoingness. Enacting the dialectical paradigm towards a risk science for a flourishing world will depend on creating collectives toward complex risk science, supporting them with skillfully governed commons, and centering care in our research.
