IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v40y2020i4p667-673.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inductive Risk, Science, and Values: A Reply to MacGillivray

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel J. Hicks
  • P. D. Magnus
  • Jessey Wright

Abstract

The argument from inductive risk (AIR) is perhaps the most common argument against the value‐free ideal of science. Brian MacGillivray rejects the AIR (at least as it would apply to risk assessment) and embraces the value‐free ideal. We clarify the issues at stake and argue that MacGillivray's criticisms, although effective against some formulations of the AIR, fail to overcome the essential concerns that motivate the AIR. There are inevitable trade‐offs in scientific enquiry that cannot be resolved with any formal methods or general rules. Choices must be made, and values will be involved. It is best to recognize this explicitly. Even so, there is more work to be done developing methods and institutional support for these choices.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel J. Hicks & P. D. Magnus & Jessey Wright, 2020. "Inductive Risk, Science, and Values: A Reply to MacGillivray," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 667-673, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:667-673
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13434
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13434?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian H. MacGillivray, 2014. "Heuristics Structure and Pervade Formal Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 771-787, April.
    2. Brian H. MacGillivray, 2019. "Null Hypothesis Testing ≠ Scientific Inference: A Critique of the Shaky Premise at the Heart of the Science and Values Debate, and a Defense of Value‐Neutral Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1520-1532, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vicki Bier, 2020. "The Role of Decision Analysis in Risk Analysis: A Retrospective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2207-2217, November.
    2. David G Jenkins & Pedro F Quintana-Ascencio, 2020. "A solution to minimum sample size for regressions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(2), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Brian H. MacGillivray, 2019. "Null Hypothesis Testing ≠ Scientific Inference: A Critique of the Shaky Premise at the Heart of the Science and Values Debate, and a Defense of Value‐Neutral Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1520-1532, July.

    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:wly:riskan:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:667-673. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.