PhilSci Archive

Scientific expertise, risk assessment, and majority voting

Boyer-Kassem, Thomas (2016) Scientific expertise, risk assessment, and majority voting. In: UNSPECIFIED.

[img]
Preview
Text
Boyer-Kassem_wp_Scientific-Expertise.pdf

Download (213kB) | Preview

Abstract

Scientists are often asked to advise political institutions on pressing risk-related questions, like climate change or the authorization of medical drugs. Given that deliberation will often not eliminate all disagreements between scientists, how should their risk assessments be aggregated? I argue that this problem is distinct from two familiar and well-studied problems in the literature: judgment aggregation and probability aggregation. I introduce a novel decision-theoretic model where risk assessments are compared with acceptability thresholds. Majority voting is then defended by means of robustness considerations.


Export/Citation: EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL
Social Networking:
Share |

Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (UNSPECIFIED)
Creators:
CreatorsEmailORCID
Boyer-Kassem, Thomast.c.e.boyer-kassem@uvt.nl0000-0002-7621-0253
Keywords: scientific expertise, risk, majority voting, robustness, decision theory
Subjects: General Issues > Decision Theory
General Issues > Science and Society
Depositing User: Dr. Thomas Boyer-Kassem
Date Deposited: 24 Oct 2016 13:30
Last Modified: 24 Oct 2016 13:30
Item ID: 12506
Subjects: General Issues > Decision Theory
General Issues > Science and Society
Date: 3 November 2016
URI: https://philsci-archive-dev.library.pitt.edu/id/eprint/12506

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item