Abstract“Postnormal” currents of thought, which are herein used in reference to the post‐normal science and the postnormal times frameworks, have been tremendously useful to help us understand the limits of science and the nature of societal change. Yet a blanket adherence to these frameworks without scrutiny risks falling into an unsubstantiated ideology. In response to and as a prevention of this risk, this article explains and critiques the two frameworks. It explains that post‐normal science is both a description of a recent trend in science applied to policy contexts and a prescriptive response to new conditions of scientific inquiry. It also explains that postnormal times is both description of societal change and expression of subjective feelings elicited by such change. The two frameworks' merits and limitations are also discussed. The article's conclusion is that while the post‐normal science framework can be rescued with some further qualifications, the postnormal times framework is particularly problematic. The discussion of the two frameworks' limitations is used as a warning against ideological positions that prevent fruitful research in the field of futures and foresight, and to encourage a more informed use of the term “postnormal.”