Work-Packages

Summary of the WP: The purpose of this work package is to define radical uncertainty. Indeed, although initially coined by Knight (1921), the term has been used in various contexts though never with a rigorously clarified meaning of a critical assessment. Based on the current state of decision theory, a tentative definition could be the following, trying go beyond the traditional concepts of risk and uncertainty: radical uncertainty corresponds to the form of uncertainty where the agent cannot conceive fully the set of possible scenarios (states of nature), as suggested by Kay & Mervyn (2020). The objective is to clarify the roots, the meaning, phenomenology and conceptual framework revolving around radical uncertainty. It echoes numerous classical issues about knowledge, representation, randomness, etc. and suggests thinking through new insights on traditional topics.

This highlights the need for a clear conceptual framework to understand various forms of limit cases of belief and uncertainty, including risk, ambiguity, doubt, radical ignorance, and the like. It suggests that to distinguish “Radical Uncertainty (RU)” from related concepts like Taleb’s “black swans” or Kreps’s “unforeseen contingencies” a general philosophical take and a comprehensive map of these ideas across disciplines is needed. Likewise, what logic in a broad sense can tell us or lead us to formalize RU and inconceivable events will be particularly investigated, with links to the “Amsterdam school of logic” (Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, around S. Rahman and S. Smets).

Another perspective in this approach is to take stock of the conceptual and logical advances in the definition and modeling of RU, as was put forth in the special issue of Erkenntnis and the seminal article “Radical Uncertainty: Beyond Probabilistic Models of Belief” by Romejin and Roi (2014). Finally,l a phenomenology of non-standard cases of belief and apprehensions of reality (variation of facts into counter-factuals or para-factuals, modalization of facts, illusory takes on factual reality etc.) as the one put forward in Husserl (1913) is required to single out RU from other forms of epistemic uncertainty, distinguish and articulate it with standard and non-standard forms of doubt, and, finally, ground an “ontology of the life world” which includes an indeterminate open future.

On a general note, the goal of this work package is to bring together heterogenous contributions related to RU, epistemology and logic to clarify the ins and outs of this central concept under a general philosophical and phenomenological heading. As a complement to this conceptual deepening, the social, economic and political consequences of RU will also be studied, in particular through the history of thought (skepticism, empiricism, critique of knowledge) . Thinkers like Knight, Keynes or Savage, as already mentioned, have put forth the critical role of RU in the realm of the economy and the society, but the broader philosophical framework for a full-fledged historical-systematic account of RU is still a desideratum. The objective is to deepen their insights on the importance, in general, of radical uncertainties for human societies.

WP Leaders: Claudio Majolino et Alexandra Hyard

Summary of the WP: The aim of this work package is to create disruptive, nearly inconceivable scenarios by harnessing a diverse range of perspectives from both experts and creative thinkers. Inspired by the "Red Team Defense" initiative, which challenged the Ministry of Armies in France through a similar approach, this project relies on the collaborative efforts of experts and writers to develop these scenarios. Through cross-disciplinary collaboration, involving specialists from hard sciences, social sciences, and fiction authors, the project will generate unexpected narratives that span multiple sectors, including economics, education, health, and society.

The various dimensions in which major or global crises, transition shocks, disruption may take place will be examined through collaborative cross-disciplinary works, involving researchers from various fields, including the hard sciences, public figures and people in positions of responsibility and knowledge, and other creative thinkers such as fiction authors. This will include the environmental dimension (climate change being only one of the possible issues), the technological perspective (with among other issues the possible scenarios involving AI), socio-political and geopolitical changes. These three dimensions will not only offer possibilities that are difficult to imagine in isolation, but will also interact with each other and with additional issues such as health/sanitary crises and demographic issues.

We thus plan to explore the combinatorial of crises, shocks, disruptions, transitions but also scientific progress and technological, cultural and social advances. The study of these numerous combinations will provide a dynamic map of radical uncertainties and a database (as an online library) of RU scenarios. Three key methodological challenges will be addressed:

1.  collectively creating relevant scenarios with sufficient details for further analysis
2. maintaining scientific rigor while producing such scenarios, and
3. examining the relationship between fiction and truth.

To achieve these goals, we will rely on existing methodology for collaborative writing and scenario conception, participatory action research toolkits as well as data analysis softwares. The problem of sequential unveiling of scenario data and the cost of obtaining information will be an important part of our thinking.

This will also require reflective work on the epistemic status of our scenario-based approach and more generally the status of fiction. This reflexive exercise to strengthen the scenario-building process, particularly at the intersection of science, expertise, and fiction, drawing on the cognitive function of fictions. It will explore how fictional thought experiments, which do not conform to the constraints of reality, can offer valuable insights into radical uncertainty (RU), by examining how such scenarios influence behavior within narratives, reader responses, and their impact on civil society. Furthermore, research addressing environmental concerns, technological changes, and broad political implications will be integrated into this work package.

 WP Leaders: Damien Charabidze et Mikael Toulza

Summary of the WP: This work package seeks to understand how deliberation processes are influenced by Extreme radical uncertainty (ERU), focusing on the steps of gathering information, developing scenarios, evaluating data, reasoning, and developing arguments. It explores how RU impacts deliberation and whether it prompts caution, indecision, or the establishment of inclusive debates between diverse forms of knowledge, such as expert and civil society perspectives.

Special attention will be given to group, organizational, and institutional levels, as they provide observable fields of public deliberation. The research will investigate how knowledge, expertise, and data drive strategic decision-making in changing environments, including crisis situations and hybrid systems involving multiple actors. Additionally, it will explore the role of AI, simulation, and wargaming in enhancing decision-making and how democratic institutions can adapt to the rapid "decision loop" influenced by technology. Comparative studies, including field research in the US during the 2024-2025 election period, will provide insights into how global challenges are addressed by key national security institutions.

Finally, the project will analyze how European democracies and the transatlantic alliance adapt to emerging strategic challenges, including hybrid threats, environmental crises, and security challenges, to shape comprehensive civil-military strategies to better anticipate and mitigate ERUs.

WP Leaders : Justine Faure et Sami Makki

Summary of the WP: This work package aims to understand how decision-making processes, both at the individual and group levels, are influenced by radical uncertainty (RU). It will explore how RU affects the steps from deliberation to choice, considering whether decisions are made through fast, automatic processes or slower, controlled reasoning. While individual choices are often influenced by external factors (e.g., outcome value, action cost) and psychological factors (e.g., motivation, ethical views) in well-controlled environments, it is less clear how these factors behave in situations of RU.

WP3 will investigate whether RU prompts individuals and groups to rely more on habits or deliberate reasoning, and how classic models in psychology, economics, ethology and computational neuroscience predict behavior under RU conditions. Non-human models such as insect societies and mathematical/computer models will also be considered.

This research will employ both qualitative (e.g., group studies) and quantitative (e.g., laboratory experiments) methods, using scenarios related to RU themes such as global warming, armed conflicts, and AI development. These scenarios will be created with experts from various fields (WP1’) and implemented in experiments to measure decision-making through behavioral, physiological, and neuroscientific data. The findings will help determine how RU modulates known influences on choice and whether new factors emerge, contributing to a deeper understanding of decision-making under uncertainty.

WP Leaders: Julien Benistant et Arthur Prével 

Summary of the WP: This work package's aim is to examine the normative aspects of decision-making, particularly how decisions are perceived as right, justified, or legitimate in the context of (extreme) radical uncertainty (ERU) by those who adopt them and their addressees. It explores the criteria used by different actors to judge decisions, considering ethical, civic, and social concerns, as well as the legitimacy of the entire decision-making process. Legitimacy, a complex concept, is analyzed through three types:

• pragmatic (based on favorable outcomes),
• cognitive (comprehensibility of the decision-making process),
• and moral (alignment with shared social norms and values).

The WP will study how individuals, professionals and groups perceive decisions made by various actors, such as companies, states, or international organizations, and the role of factors like social characteristics, psychological traits, economic situations, and exposure to information in these perceptions. It will also explore whether ERU contexts make legitimacy factors more or less relevant, especially during crises or emergencies where evaluations of decisions can either unify or polarize groups. The impact of perceived legitimacy or illegitimacy on future behaviors, such as voting, civil disobedience, boycotting or consumer actions, will be analyzed, with a focus on how retrospective assessments influence these behaviors in ERU contexts.

Methodologically, WP4 will use qualitative and quantitative research, employing semi-structured interviews, surveys, and experimental methods to study how decisions are perceived and legitimized under ERU conditions. Case studies will be conducted at local, national, and international levels, allowing comparisons of decision-making across different actors and situations, with the goal of producing timely, scientifically informed insights.

WP Leaders: Jean-François Toti et Elsa Bernard

Summary of the WP: This work package focuses on establishing strong links with civil society through participatory action research, scientific mediation, education, networking, and funding, aiming to position the University of Lille as a leader in team science within France. A key goal is to build an interdisciplinary team within researchers of the DePERU Project and to develop shared working methods as well as an acculturation to various scientific and methodological issues. This will lay the foundation of the Lille Interdisciplinary Institute of Radical Uncertainty (LIIRU) and ensure long-term collaboration and integration of knowledge across disciplines.

The project will follow a team science approach, using the HOT-fit framework (Human, Organization, and Technology) to address challenges in interdisciplinary work, to intermediate collaborations and support participatory action research (PAR). The work package includes five key missions, such as training and education, which emphasizes the need for life-long learning to adapt to the evolving job market shaped by radical uncertainties like digital revolution and ecological transitions. PAR will be a central method, involving stakeholders directly to ensure that research is both for and with society, producing practical and actionable knowledge.

The project will also offer specific research, training, and consulting services to companies and institutions, helping them navigate current or future RU situations through customized research and professional decision support tools. This approach, inspired by the Red Team methodology, will create scenarios to challenge organizations and enhance their vigilance and adaptation.

Overall, this work package aims to foster a transdisciplinary approach to address complex societal challenges related to radical uncertainty.

WP Leaders: Massil Benbouriche, Damien Charabidze et Maud Herbert