Is Risk Analysis Scientific?

Risk Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 7, 2014, Pages 1173-1183

  Hansson, Sven Ove ^a   Aven, Terje ^b  

^a ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER   (Norway)

Author keywords

Consensus; Knowledge; Norms; Objectivity; Probability; Risk; Science; Uncertainty; Values

Indexed keywords

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; PROBABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISKS;

CONSENSUS; KNOWLEDGE; NORMS; OBJECTIVITY; SCIENCE; UNCERTAINTY; VALUES;

RISK ANALYSIS;

DECISION MAKING; MANAGEMENT PRACTICE; NUMERICAL MODEL; RISK ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84904976003     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12230     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. European Research Council, 2012. http://erc.europa.eu/advanced-grants. Accessed 20 Nov 2012. http://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/erc_guide_for_applicants_advanced_grant_2013_call.pdf.
2. Weinberg AM. Science and trans-science. Minerva, 1974; 10(2):209-222.
3. Cumming RB. Is risk assessment a science? Risk Analysis, 1981; 1:1-3.
4. Weinberg AM. Reflections on risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 1981; 1:5-7.
5. US National Research Council. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: NAP, 1996.
6. US National Research Council. Science and Decisions. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (NAP), 2009.
7. Ricci PF, Molton LS. Risk and benefit in environmental law. Science, 1981; 214:1096-2001.
8. Scheines R. Causation, truth, and the law. Brooklyn Law Review, 2008: 73(2):625-650.
9. Finkel A. Solution-focused risk assessment: A proposal for the fusion of environmental analysis and action. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2011; 17(4):754-787.
10. Aven T. Quantitative Risk Assessment: The Scientific Platform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
11. Layton E. American ideologies of science and engineering. Technology and Culture, 1976; 17:688-701.
12. Hansson SO. Values in pure and applied science. Foundations of Science, 2007; 12:257-268.
13. Hansson SO. Defining pseudoscience and science. In Pigliucci M, Boudry M (eds). Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2013.
14. Popper K. Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic Books, 1962.
15. Hudson RG. Reliability, pragmatic and epistemic. Erkenntnis, 1994; 40(1):71-86.
16. Merton RK. Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1942; 1:115-126.
17. Hempel CG. Inductive inconsistencies. Synthese, 1960; 12:439-469.
18. Feleppa R. Epistemic utility and theory acceptance: Comments on Hempel. Synthese, 1981; 46:413-420.
19. Hansson SO. Risk and ethics: Three approaches. Pp. 21-35 in Lewens T (ed). Risk. Philosophical Perspectives. London: Routledge, 2007.
20. Hansson SO. Regulating BFRs-From science to policy. Chemosphere, 2008b; 73:144-147.
21. Hansson SO. Risk-Objective or subjective, facts or values? Journal of Risk Research, 2010; 13:231-238.
22. Pigliucci M, Boudry M. Prove it! The burden of proof game in science vs. pseudoscience disputes. Philosophia, 2014, in press.
23. Renn O. Risk Governance. London: Earthscan, 2008.
24. Aven T, Renn O. Risk Management and Governance. London: Springer, 2010.
25. Aven T, Zio E. Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Analysis, 2014; 34:1164-1172.
26. Aven T. The risk concept. Historical and recent development trends. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2012; 99:33-44.
27. Hansson SO. The entry "risk" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/risk/, Accessed May 20, 2014.
28. Mohaghegh Z, Kazemi R, Mosleh A. Incorporating organizational factors into probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) of complex socio-technical systems: A hybrid technique formalization. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2009; 94:1000-1018.
29. Doorn N, Hansson SO. Should safety factors replace probabilistic design? Philos Technologies, 2011; 24:151-168.
30. Aven T, Zio E. Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision-making. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2011; 96:64-74.
31. Hansson SO. Do we need second-order probabilities? Dialectica, 2008; 62:525-533.
32. Hansson SO. Measuring uncertainty. Studia Logica, 2009; 93:21-40.
33. Aven T, Krohn BS. A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2014; 121:1-10.
34. Taleb NN. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. London: Penguin, 2007.
35. Taleb NN, Goldstein NG, Spitznagel MW. The six mistakes executives make in risk management. Harvard Business Review, 2009; 87(10):78-81.
36. Aven T. Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practice. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2011; 96:509-514.
37. Lund R. Revenge of the white swan. American Statistician, 2007; 61:189-192.
38. Hansson SO. Coping with the unpredictable effects of future technologies. Philosophy and Technology, 2011; 24:137-149.
39. Paté-Cornell ME. On black swans and perfect storms: Risk analysis and management when statistics are not enough. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32(11):1823-1833.
40. Taleb NN. Anti Fragile. London: Penguin, 2012.
41. Goldstein, BD. Risk assessment of environmental chemicals: If it ain't broke. Risk Analysis, 2011; 31(9):1356-1362.
42. Cox T. Confronting deep uncertainties in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 2012; 32(10):1607-1629.
43. Hansson SO. Philosophical problems in cost-benefit analysis. Economics and Philosophy, 2007; 23:163-183.
44. Thompson KM, Deisler PH Jr., Schwing RC. Interdisciplinary vision: The first 25 years of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), 1980-2005. Risk Analysis, 2005; 25:1333-1386.