IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/uiiexx/v41y2009i1p86-93.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conceptualistic Pragmatism: A framework for Bayesian analysis?

Author

Listed:
  • Bo Bergman

Abstract

This paper argues for an extended framework for the subjectivist approach to statistical decision making—the judgements made for deriving a likelihood function should be carefully reflected upon. The Harvard professor of philosophy Clarence I. Lewis did offer a philosophical action-oriented framework for this type of reflection. The philosophy of Lewis has very much influenced the originators of the quality movement. This constitutes an interesting link between two important learning-oriented approaches in the current statistical discourse—the subjectivist theory of statistical inference and the quality movement with its focus on continuous improvements.

Suggested Citation

  • Bo Bergman, 2009. "Conceptualistic Pragmatism: A framework for Bayesian analysis?," IISE Transactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 86-93.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:uiiexx:v:41:y:2009:i:1:p:86-93
    DOI: 10.1080/07408170802322713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/07408170802322713
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/07408170802322713?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aven, Terje, 2010. "On how to define, understand and describe risk," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(6), pages 623-631.
    2. Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 137-150.
    3. Aven, Terje, 2011. "Selective critique of risk assessments with recommendations for improving methodology and practise," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(5), pages 509-514.
    4. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A critical discussion and practical recommendations on some issues relevant to the non-probabilistic treatment of uncertainty in engineering risk assessment," Post-Print hal-01652230, HAL.
    5. Aven, Terje, 2014. "On the meaning of the special-cause variation concept used in the quality discourse – And its link to unforeseen and surprising events in risk management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 81-86.
    6. Terje Aven, 2017. "Improving the foundation and practice of reliability engineering," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 231(3), pages 295-305, June.
    7. Aven, Terje & Zio, Enrico, 2011. "Some considerations on the treatment of uncertainties in risk assessment for practical decision making," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 64-74.
    8. Aven, Terje, 2015. "Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 83-91.
    9. Aven, Terje & Krohn, Bodil S., 2014. "A new perspective on how to understand, assess and manage risk and the unforeseen," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 1-10.
    10. Aven, Terje, 2020. "Bayesian analysis: Critical issues related to its scope and boundaries in a risk context," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    11. Aven, Terje, 2013. "Practical implications of the new risk perspectives," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 136-145.
    12. Aven, Terje, 2016. "Ignoring scenarios in risk assessments: Understanding the issue and improving current practice," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 215-220.
    13. Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Alberto Pasanisi & Mathieu Couplet, 2017. "A Critical Discussion and Practical Recommendations on Some Issues Relevant to the Nonprobabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Engineering Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(7), pages 1315-1340, July.
    14. Aven, Terje, 2012. "The risk concept—historical and recent development trends," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 33-44.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:uiiexx:v:41:y:2009:i:1:p:86-93. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/uiie .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.