Varieties of Risk

风险种类

• 批准号: AH/T002638/1
• 负责人: Philip Ebert
• 金额: $ 78.21万
• 依托单位: University of Stirling
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2020
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2020 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FT002638%2F1
• 关键词: Varieties; Risk

The notion of risk plays a central role in economics, finance, health, psychology, law and elsewhere-and is prevalent in managing challenges and resources in day-to-day life. Almost all of the existing literature on risk takes it for granted that there is one and only one legitimate notion of risk: the probabilistic notion on which the risk of an event or state of affairs is equated with its probability. The primary aim of this research project is to challenge this monist view of risk and provide a philosophical framework for a pluralist perspective, on which there are multiple, equally legitimate, notions of risk. This new framework will then be applied to crucial questions about risk that arise in psychology, criminal law, outdoor sports, and risk management. PhilosophyWe develop risk pluralism by drawing on other long-standing debates about pluralism in philosophy, for example, pluralism about truth, value, norms, or logical consequence. We argue that risk pluralism offers not merely a descriptively adequate theory of risk judgments, but also that it is the correct normative theory. Our defence of risk pluralism will tie in with current debates about philosophical methodology and epistemic rationality.PsychologyIt is widely acknowledged that risk judgments that people are inclined to make don't always align with what the probabilistic account would predict to be correct. In research dating back to at least the 1970s psychologists have identified a range of ways in which people's intuitive judgments systematically deviate from the predictions of the probabilistic account. These results have been taken to reveal heuristics and biases which guide our judgments. A pluralist account of risk opens up a new way of interpreting these findings: risk judgments which diverge from the probabilistic account could be reconceived as tracking non-probabilistic notions of risk. Criminal LawMany of the rules of criminal procedure are designed to minimise the risk of convicting an innocent person. In particular, the high standard of proof for criminal trials-beyond reasonable doubt-is designed to ensure that the risk of mistaken convictions is very low. And yet, as a number of theorists have observed, many features of the criminal trial process are difficult to square with a probabilistic account of risk. We argue that introducing certain non-probabilistic notions of risk enables us to better account for the realities of legal practice. We will also investigate other ways in which risk figures in criminal trials, e.g. in pre-trial decision about bail or detention, definitions of recklessness, or decisions about parole.Outdoor sportOutdoor sports and so-called "extreme" sports, such as mountaineering, base-jumping, or off-piste skiing, involve an increased fatality rate which also affects the most competent practitioners in these activities. In recent studies, numerous "heuristics traps" and biases have been identified that can lead practitioners to misjudge the dangers involved, while the visceral nature of an accident can, in turn, lead non-practitioners to overestimate the dangers of such activities. A pluralist account of risk can help to explain such widespread disagreement in risk judgments by showing that some such judgments are responding to a non-probabilistic notion of risk.Risk ManagementThe widespread practice of de minimis risk management involves disregarding certain low risk possibilities, while subjecting moderate and high-risk possibilities to a comprehensive risk analysis. If risk is understood in probabilistic terms, this practice cannot be justified-and it has been criticised on precisely these grounds. We will determine whether the practice may be legitimate relative to a non-probabilistic notion of risk.

风险的概念在经济、金融、卫生、心理学、法律和其他领域发挥着核心作用--在管理日常生活中的挑战和资源方面也很普遍。几乎所有现有的关于风险的文献都理所当然地认为，存在且只有一个关于风险的合法概念：将事件或事件状态的风险等同于其概率的概率概念。这项研究项目的主要目的是挑战这种一元论的风险观点，并为多元化的视角提供一个哲学框架，在多元视角下，有多种同样合法的风险概念。这个新的框架将被应用于心理学、刑法、户外运动和风险管理中出现的关于风险的关键问题。哲学我们通过借鉴哲学中其他长期存在的关于多元化的争论来发展风险多元化，例如，关于真理、价值、规范或逻辑结果的多元化。我们认为，风险多元化不仅提供了一种描述充分的风险判断理论，而且还提供了正确的规范性理论。我们对风险多元论的辩护将与当前关于哲学方法论和认知理性的辩论相一致。心理学人们普遍认为，人们倾向于做出的风险判断并不总是与概率账户预测的正确一致。在至少可以追溯到20世纪70年代的研究中，心理学家已经确定了人们的直觉判断系统地偏离概率账户预测的一系列方式。这些结果揭示了指导我们判断的启发式和偏见。对风险的多元解释为解释这些发现开辟了一种新的方式：偏离概率解释的风险判断可以被视为跟踪非概率的风险概念。刑法许多刑事诉讼规则的设计都是为了将给无辜的人定罪的风险降到最低。特别是，刑事审判的高标准证据--排除合理怀疑--旨在确保误判的风险非常低。然而，正如许多理论家所观察到的那样，刑事审判过程的许多特征很难与对风险的概率解释相一致。我们认为，引入某些非概率风险概念使我们能够更好地说明法律实践的现实。我们还将调查刑事审判中风险数字的其他方面，例如在关于保释或拘留的预审决定、对鲁莽行为的定义或关于假释的决定中。户外运动户外运动和所谓的“极限”运动，如登山、定点跳伞或越野滑雪，涉及更高的死亡率，这也影响到这些活动中最有能力的从业者。在最近的研究中，发现了许多可能导致从业者误判所涉及的危险的“启发式陷阱”和偏见，而事故的本能性质又可能导致非从业者高估此类活动的危险。对风险的多元解释可以帮助解释风险判断中普遍存在的分歧，因为它表明，一些这样的判断是对非概率风险概念的反应。风险管理最低限度风险管理的广泛实践包括忽略某些低风险可能性，同时对中等风险和高风险可能性进行全面的风险分析。如果用概率术语来理解风险，这种做法是不合理的--正是基于这些理由，这种做法受到了批评。我们将确定相对于非概率的风险概念，这种做法是否合法。

项目成果

Expert and lay judgements of danger and recklessness in adventure sports

专家和外行对冒险运动中危险和鲁莽的判断

• DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2022.2091001
• 发表时间: 2022
• 期刊: Journal of Risk Research
• 影响因子: 5.1
• 作者: Ebert P

At least you tried: The value of De Dicto concern to do the right thing

至少你尝试过：De Dicto 的价值在于关注做正确的事

• DOI: 10.1007/s11098-022-01791-9
• 发表时间: 2022
• 期刊: Philosophical Studies
• 影响因子: 1.3
• 作者: Field C

Wisdom of Crowds. Gruppenentscheidungen in den Bergen

群众的智慧。

• 发表时间: 2022
• 作者: Ebert, P.A.

Methodological and conceptual challenges in rare and severe event forecast-verification

罕见和严重事件预报验证中的方法和概念挑战

• DOI: 10.5194/nhess-2021-215
• 发表时间: 2021
• 作者: Ebert P

Safety in numbers: how social choice theory can inform avalanche risk management

数字安全：社会选择理论如何为雪崩风险管理提供信息

• DOI: 10.1080/14729679.2021.2012216
• 发表时间: 2022
• 期刊: Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning
• 影响因子: 1.9
• 作者: Ebert P