Does risk exist, and if it does, where does it live and how do we

find it?Doug Crawford-Brown

Professor of Environmental Sciences and PolicyDirector, UNC Institute for the Environment

UNC-Chapel Hill

and

Energy and Environment NetworksCambridge, U.K.

Some motivation: Where does the

mass of this molecule exist?

Where does the color exist?

Where does my feeling about the

color exist?

So, is the risk in the molecule?

Yes, this is toluene.

Well, a little more refined:

+

Even more refined:

+

And one final refinement:

+

My first claim:

Risk involves some confluence of these locations and properties, although it EXPRESSES itself in the health of a population (e.g. incidence of disease)

But is the risk IN that confluence of places and properties (and

where would that confluence exist), or in the mind that perceives

these?

Three schools of thought on risk

Objective Subjective Psychologistic

My second claim:

The world does not contain risk. It contains outcomes and causes. Our

minds contain the risk because we are uncertain what outcome will occur. But

this risk is of the psychologistic, not subjective, kind.

But risk is in response to…

+

Heidegger and the lab

My third claim:

While risk might ultimately be psychologistic, it must result from (i)

scientific methodologies to engage the world and (ii) methodologies of rational assessment of beliefs about that world.

Searle and the Chinese Box

Scientific assessment:

input output

Rational reflection

My fourth claim:

For ALMOST all intents and purposes, you would never know whether the box

contains Doug or Dale.

What is your best estimate of the outcome?

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

1 2 3 4 5

What is your best estimate of the risk?

Am I confusing Kant’s three questions?

What Is (the risk)?

What Ought to Be (the risk)?

How do You Know (the risk)?

My fifth claim:

I am not confusing risk with the perception of, or estimation of risk.

I am saying that risk IS a rational perception of the world.

(Obtained from a jointly scientific and philosophical process)

Is this rational perception also a social process?

One view: the classical

school of rationality

• Formal rules of reasoning• These are defined clearly

• These are agreed upon by all participants• Rules are applied universally

• All rational individuals reach the same conclusions

A second: Bernstein and dialogical rationality

“…stresses the character of this rationality in which there is choice,

deliberation, interpretation, judicious weighing and application of universal

criteria, and even rational disagreement about which criteria are relevant and

most important.”

So, on what should a

community reflect when forming

judgments about degrees of belief

in different outcomes?

First and foremost, attend to the phenomenon and its probablilities:

+

Desiderata of Rationality

Ontology

Epistemological basis

Conceptual clarity

Logic

Methodology

Valuation

Practicality

Modes of reasoning

• Direct empirical• Semi-empirical extrapolation

• Empirical correlation• Theory-based inference

• Existential insight• Pragmatic success

Intellectual Obligation

(i) the degree to which a specific mode of reasoning must be available to increase epistemic status above

minimal epistemic status

and

(ii) the degree to which a specific mode of reasoning must be weighted into the final analysis of epistemic

status for each belief.

My sixth claim:

The psychologistic basis of risk is rooted in judgments combining

classical (probabilistic) and dialogical rationality.

Some central questions on judgment…

• What is it legitimate to form a judgment about?• Under what conditions is it legitimate to form

such a judgment?• What evidence do we have that such judgments

are reliable, truthful, etc?• To what is the judgment truthful?• Are judgments good in and of themselves, or an

approximation to something better?

My seventh claim:

Judgment is part of the ontology of risk, but it must be a structured

judgment rooted in scientific observation with valid underlying

reasons clearly stated and discussed.

Example: Working tables to organize “the architecture of

thought”Observational Context: ____________________________________________________

A B C D E F G H I J KCategories Specific effect Relevance Strategy Intellectual Study Citation Study Study Coherence within Quality of Coherence across Quality of(effect to be (Kind of Evidence) Obligation Quality Result Relevance Judgement Relevance Judgementconsidered) Strategies* in H Strategies** in J

(DE,SE,EC,TBI.EI) (H, M, L) (H, M, L) (+,-,?) (+,-,?) (H, M, L) (+,-,?) (H, M, L)DESEECTBIEIDESEECTBIEI

*Taking into account F & G**Taking into account H & I & D

The Foundational Judgments

• Evidence goes strongly against the claim• Evidence goes moderately against the claim

• Evidence goes weakly against the claim• Evidence is neutral with respect to the claim

• Evidence goes weakly for the claim• Evidence goes moderately for the claim

• Evidence goes strongly for the claim

Finally, risk is characterized by:

• Scientific perception of the confluence of risk agent, organism, scenario and exposure

• A summary of competing beliefs of possible outcomes associated with this confluence

• Epistemic judgments of each belief resulting from systematic analysis of their rational basis

• An open dialogue between qualified individuals, concerning this systematic analysis

• A dialogue reflecting on the seven desiderata of rationality and six categories of evidence