Incommensurability: The failure to compare risks

The Ethics of Technological Risk

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 128-214

  Espinoza, Nicolas ^a  

^a LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925755350     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781849772990     Document Type: Chapter

References (42)

1. Adler, M. (1998) ‘Incommensurability and cost-benefit analysis’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol 146, pp1371–1418
2. Aumann, R. (1962) ‘Utility theory without the completeness axiom’, Econometrica, vol 30, pp445–462
3. Baron, J. (1997) ‘Biases in the quantitative measurement of values for public decisions’, Psychological Bulletin, vol 122, pp72–88
4. Baron, J. and Ritov, I. (1994) ‘Reference points and omission bias’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol 59, pp475–498
5. Baron, J. and Spranca, M. (1997) ‘Protected values’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol 70, no 1, pp1–16
6. Bazerman, M. H., Moore, D. A. and Gillespie, J. J. (1999) ‘The human mind as a barrier to wiser environmental agreements’, American Behavioral Scientist, vol 42, pp 1277– 1300
7. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, translated by Mark Ritter, Sage, London
8. Bewley, T. (1986) ‘Knightian uncertainty theory: Part I’, Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper No. 807, Cowles Foundation, Yale University
9. Chang, R. (1997) ‘Introduction’, in R. Chang (ed.) Incommensurability, Incomparability, and Practical Reason, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA
10. Chang, R. (2002) ‘The possibility of parity’, Ethics, vol 112, pp659–688
11. Covello, T. (1991) ‘Risk comparisons and risk communication: issues and problems in comparing health and environmental risks’, in R. Kasperson and P. J. M. Stallen (eds) Communicating Risks to the Public, vol 79, Kluwer
12. Danan, E. (2003) ‘Revealed cognitive preference theory’, mimeo, http://www.ucergy.fr/edanan/research/revealed_cognitive.pdf
13. De Finetti, B. (1931) ‘Probabilismo: saggio critico sulla teoria della probabilità e sul valore della Scienza’, Napoli
14. Eliaz, K. and Ok, E. A. (2006) ‘Indifference or indecisiveness? Choice theoretic foundations of incomplete preferences’, Games and Economic Behavior, vol 56, no 1, pp61–86
15. Elvik, R. (1999) ‘Assessing the validity of evaluation research by means of meta-analysis, Institute of Transport Economics’, mimeo, Norwegian Centre for Transport Research
16. Espinoza, N. (2006) ‘The small improvement argument’, mimeo, Luleå University of Technology
17. Espinoza, N. and Peterson, M. (2006) ‘Human choice behaviour: A probabilistic analysis of incomplete preferences’, mimeo, Luleå University of Technology
18. Gillies, D. (2000) Philosophical Theories of Probability, Routledge, London
19. Hajek, A. (2003) ‘Interpretations of probability’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/
20. Hansson, S. O. (2003) ‘Ethical criteria of risk acceptance’, Erkenntnis, vol 59, no 3, pp291–309
21. Hansson, S. O. (2004a) ‘Fallacies of risk’, Journal of Risk Research, vol 7, no 3, pp353–360
22. Hansson, S. O. (2004b) ‘Philosophical perspectives on risk’, Techné, vol 8, no 1
23. Hansson, S. O. (2004c) ‘Weighing Risks and Benefits’, Topoi, vol 23, no 22, pp145–152
24. Hermansson, H. (2005) ‘Consistent risk management: three models outlined’, Journal of Risk Research, vol 8, pp557–568
25. Hornstein, D. T. (1992) ‘Reclaiming environmental law: a normative critique of comparative risk assessment’, Columbia Law Review, vol 92, no 3, pp562–633
26. Jenni, K. (1997) ‘Attributes for risk evaluation’, PhD dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
27. Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P. and Tversky, A. (1971) Foundations of Measurement, vol 1, Academic Press, New York
28. Luce, R. D. and Suppes, P. (1965) ‘Preferences, utility, and subjective probability’, in R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush and E. Galanter (eds) Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, vol 3, Wiley, New York
29. Mandler, M. (2005) ‘Incomplete preferences and rational intransitivity of choice’, Games and Economic Behaviour, vol 50, pp255–277
30. Margolis, H. (1996) Dealing With Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues, University of Chicago Press, Chicago
31. Mellor, D. H. (2005) Probability: A Philosophical Introduction, Routledge, London
32. Peterson, M. (2006) ‘Indeterminate preferences’, Philosophical Studies, vol 130, no 2, pp297–320
33. Ramsey, F. (1931) ‘Truth and probability’, in R. Braithwaite (ed.) The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, Humanities Press, London
34. Savage, L. J. (1954) The Foundation of Statistics, John Wiley and Sons, New York
35. Sen, A. (2004) ‘Incompleteness and reasoned choice’, Synthese, vol 140, pp43–59
36. Sinott-Armstrong, W. (1988) Moral Dilemmas, Blackwell, Oxford
37. Tetlock, P. E. (2003) ‘Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol 7, no 7, pp320–324
38. Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S. and Lerner, R. S. (1996) ‘Revising the value pluralism model: Incorporating social content and context postulates’, in C. Seligman, J. M. Olson and M. P. Zanna (eds) The Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium Volume 8, Routledge
39. Tetlock, P. E., Kristel, O., Elson, B., Green, M. and Lerner, J. (2000) ‘The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 78, pp853–870
40. Thompson, J. J. (1997) ‘The right and the good’, The Journal of Philosophy, vol 94, no 6, pp273–298
41. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. (1947) Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour, Princeton University Press, Princeton NJ
42. Wester-Herber, M. (2006) ‘En enkätundersökning om stockholmares attityder till dubbdäck: frågor om partiklar, hälsa och säkerhet’, Naturvårdsverket rapport, nr. 561