ABSTRACT
In the abstract to their article ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber write that there is a distinction between neat and wicked problems. In ‘hard’ science, the researcher is allowed to make hypotheses that are later refuted. One is not penalised for making hypotheses that turn out to be wrong; science has been developed to deal with neat or ‘tame’ problems. Not so in the world of social sciences and human communication where no such immunity is tolerated. Here the aim is not to find the truth, but to improve some characteristic of the world where people live. Planners are liable for the consequences of the actions they generate. The authors maintain that the search for scientific bases to confront problems of social policy is bound to fail, because of the nature of these problems. Even worse, there are no solutions, in the sense of definitive and objective answers. 1
