  The use of science for policy is at the core of a perfect storm generated by
the insurgence of several concurrent crises: of science, of trust, of
sustainability. The modern positivistic model of science for policy, known as
evidence based policy, is based on dramatic simplifications and compressions of
available perceptions of the state of affairs and possible explanations
(hypocognition). This model can result in flawed prescriptions. The flaws
become more evident when dealing with complex issues characterized by
concomitant uncertainties in the normative, descriptive and ethical domains. In
this situation evidence-based policy may concur to the fragility of the social
system. Science plays an important role in reducing the feeling of
vulnerability of humans by projecting a promise of protection against
uncertainties. In many applications quantitative science is used to remove
uncertainty by transforming it into probability, so that mathematical modelling
can play the ritual role of haruspices. This epistemic governance arrangement
is today in crisis. The primacy of science to adjudicate political issues must
pass through an assessment of the level of maturity and effectiveness of the
various disciplines deployed. The solution implies abandoning dreams of
prediction, control and optimization obtained by relying on a limited set of
simplified narratives to define the problem and moving instead to an open
exploration of a broader set of plausible and relevant stories. Evidence based
policy has to be replaced by robust policy, where robustness is tested with
respect to feasibility (compatibility with processes outside human control);
viability (compatibility with processes under human control, in relation to
both the economic and technical dimensions), and desirability domain
(compatibility with a plurality of normative considerations relevant to a
plurality of actors).
