Varieties of Risk

风险的概念在经济、金融、健康、心理学、法律和其他领域发挥着核心作用，并且在日常生活中的挑战和资源管理中普遍存在。几乎所有关于风险的现有文献都理所当然地认为，存在且只有一种合理的风险概念：概率概念，在这种概念上，事件或事态的风险与其概率相等。本研究项目的主要目的是挑战这种一元论的风险观，并为多元主义的观点提供一个哲学框架，在多元主义的观点上，有多种同样合理的风险概念。然后，这个新的框架将应用于心理学、刑法、户外运动和风险管理中出现的风险的关键问题。哲学我们通过借鉴哲学中关于多元主义的其他长期争论来发展风险多元主义，例如，关于真理、价值、规范或逻辑结果的多元主义。我们认为，风险多元主义不仅提供了一种描述性充分的风险判断理论，而且是正确的规范理论。我们对风险多元论的辩护将与当前关于哲学方法论和认识合理性的辩论联系在一起。【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预测的正确结果一致。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预测的一系列方式。这些结果揭示了引导我们判断的启发式和偏见。风险的多元解释开辟了一种解释这些发现的新方式：偏离概率解释的风险判断可以被重新理解为跟踪风险的非概率概念。刑法许多刑事诉讼规则的设计都是为了尽量减少无辜者被定罪的风险。特别是，刑事审判的高标准证据——超越合理怀疑——旨在确保错误定罪的风险非常低。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风险的概率描述相符。我们认为，引入风险的某些非概率概念使我们能够更好地解释法律实践的现实。我们还将调查刑事审判中风险数字的其他方式，例如审前决定保释或拘留，定义鲁莽行为或决定假释。户外运动户外运动和所谓的“极限”运动，如登山、定点跳伞或非滑雪道滑雪，死亡率增加，这也影响到这些活动中最有能力的从业人员。在最近的研究中，已经发现了许多“启发式陷阱”和偏见，它们可能导致从业者对所涉及的危险做出错误判断，而事故的内在本质反过来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如此广泛的分歧，因为它表明一些这样的判断是对风险的非概率概念的反应。风险管理最小风险管理的广泛实践包括忽略某些低风险可能性，而对中等和高风险可能性进行全面的风险分析。如果风险是用概率的术语来理解的，那么这种做法就不能被证明是合理的——而它正是基于这些理由而受到批评的。我们将确定相对于风险的非概率概念，这种做法是否合法。

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.