Trying to chew over whether I agree with this. I'm not sure I agree with the premise that "science exists to understand natural phenomena". Science is simply a systematic way of answering questions. One can ask questions about anything--not just natural phenomena. But obviously the question has to be formed in a way that makes it testable. Are only "natural phenomena" testable? I have to think about this. My gut says it's wrong (like can't we apply science to the economy? and surely no one would argue that money is "natural"), but maybe I'm misunderstanding what the author is saying.No mitigation strategy for a wicked problem has a definitive scientific test because humans invented wicked problems and science exists to understand natural phenomena.