Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist ReformsUniversity of California Press, 1 січ. 1991 р. - 312 стор. Only ten to twelve percent of Americans would voluntarily live within a mile of a nuclear plant or hazardous waste facility. But industry spokespersons claim that such risk aversion represents ignorance and paranoia, and they lament that citizen protests have delayed valuable projects and increased their costs. Who is right? In Risk and Rationality, Kristin Shrader-Frechette argues that neither charges of irresponsible endangerment nor countercharges of scientific illiteracy frame the issues properly. She examines the debate over methodological norms for risk evaluation and finds analysts arrayed in a spectrum. Points of view extend from cultural relativists who believe that any risk can be justified (since no rational standards are ultimately possible) to naive positivists who believe that risk evaluation can be objective, neutral, and value free. Both camps, she argues, are wrong, because risk evaluation as a social process is rational and objective, even though all risk-evaluation rules are value-laden. Shrader-Frechette defends a middle position called "scientific proceduralism." She shows why extremist views are unreliable, reveals misconceptions underlying current risk-evaluation methods and strategies, and sketches the reforms needed to set hazard assessment and risk evaluation on a publicly defensible foundation. These reforms involve mathematical, economic, ethical, and legal procedures. They constitute a new paradigm for assessment when acceptance of public hazards is rational, recognizing that laypersons are often more rational in their evaluation of societal risks than either experts or governments have acknowledged. Such reforms would provide citizens with more influence in risk decisions and focus on mediating ethical conflicts, rather than seeking to impose the will of experts. Science, she argues, need not preclude democracy. Only ten to twelve percent of Americans would voluntarily live within a mile of a nuclear plant or hazardous waste facility. But industry spokespersons claim that such risk aversion represents ignorance and paranoia, and they lament that citizen protests have delayed valuable projects and increased their costs. Who is right? In Risk and Rationality, Kristin Shrader-Frechette argues that neither charges of irresponsible endangerment nor countercharges of scientific illiteracy frame the issues properly. She examines the debate over methodological norms for risk evaluation and finds analysts arrayed in a spectrum. Points of view extend from cultural relativists who believe that any risk can be justified (since no rational standards are ultimately possible) to naive positivists who believe that risk evaluation can be objective, neutral, and value free. Both camps, she argues, are wrong, because risk evaluation as a social process is rational and objective, even though all risk-evaluation rules are value-laden. Shrader-Frechette defends a middle position called "scientific proceduralism." She shows why extremist views are unreliable, reveals misconceptions underlying current risk-evaluation methods and strategies, and sketches the reforms needed to set hazard assessment and risk evaluation on a publicly defensible foundation. These reforms involve mathematical, economic, ethical, and legal procedures. They constitute a new paradigm for assessment when acceptance of public hazards is rational, recognizing that laypersons are often more rational in their evaluation of societal risks than either experts or governments have acknowledged. Such reforms would provide citizens with more influence in risk decisions and focus on mediating ethical conflicts, rather than seeking to impose the will of experts. Science, she argues, need not preclude democracy. |
Зміст
ThirdWorld Risks and the Isolationist Strategy | 11 |
Science against the People | 14 |
Rejecting Reductionist Risk Evaluation The Case | 27 |
Objectivity and Values in Risk Evaluation Why | 53 |
Five Dilemmas of Risk Evaluation Why We Need | 66 |
Perceived Risk and the ExpertJudgment Strategy | 77 |
Democracy and the Probabilistic Strategy The Case | 89 |
Uncertainty and the Utilitarian Strategy The Case | 100 |
Uncertainty and the Producer Strategy The Case | 131 |
Risk Management | 146 |
Risk Evaluation Methodological Reforms | 169 |
Risk Management Procedural Reforms | 197 |
Notes | 219 |
299 | |
Інші видання - Показати все
Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms Kristin Sharon Shrader-Frechette Обмежений попередній перегляд - 1991 |
Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms K. S. Shrader-Frechette Обмежений попередній перегляд - 2023 |
Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms K. S. Shrader-Frechette Обмежений попередній перегляд - 2022 |
Загальні терміни та фрази
acceptable accident alleged argue argument assessors assumption avoid Bayesian Bayesian/utilitarian benefits biased cancer carcinogens catastrophic cause Chapter chemical citizens claim compensation consequences controversy costs Cox and Ricci criticism cultural relativists decision decisionmaking dilemma Douglas and Wildavsky economic Energy Environmental Impact Assessment environmental risks environmentalists equal equity ethical example expected utility experts exposure harm Harsanyi hazard assessment hazard evaluation Health Hence human impact individual industry informed consent Kahneman laypeople laypersons liability MacLean maximin Maximin Principle ment moral Moreover naive positivists negotiation nuclear fission Nuclear Power objective Paustenbach perceived risk persons pesticides Phenotypic Phenotypic Variation Philosophy Policy predictive probabilistic problem procedural protection public risk Rawls RCBA reasonable relativism Risk Analysis Risk and Culture Risk Assessment risk aversion risk estimates risk evaluation risk judgments risk perceptions risk probabilities safety scientific scientists situations social societal risk strategy theory typically uncertainty utilitarian value judgments Values at Risk victims Waste Whipple York
Посилання на книгу
Facility Siting: Risk, Power and Identity in Land Use Planning Asa Boholm Обмежений попередній перегляд - 2013 |
Ecosystem Change and Public Health: A Global Perspective Joan L. Aron,Jonathan Patz Обмежений попередній перегляд - 2001 |