The Science and Superstition of Quantitative Risk Assessment

Andrew John Rae; Rob Alexander; John Alexander McDermid

The Science and Superstition of Quantitative Risk Assessment

Andrew John Rae, Rob Alexander, John Alexander McDermid

Computer Science

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Conference contribution

Abstract

In safety, environmental, and financial regulation the public are often asked to accept estimates of a concept, “risk”, that they cannot directly perceive. Faith in these estimates is supported by logical reasoning but not by empirical evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence that does exist about risk phenomena indicates that human reasoning about risk is highly unreliable.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Proceedings of PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012
Publisher	International Association of Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, IAPSAM
Pages	2292-2301
Number of pages	10
Volume	3
Publication status	Published - Jul 2012

Cite this

@inproceedings{ad7694676021497a942fac79b0bcde77,

title = "The Science and Superstition of Quantitative Risk Assessment",

abstract = "In safety, environmental, and financial regulation the public are often asked to accept estimates of a concept, “risk”, that they cannot directly perceive. Faith in these estimates is supported by logical reasoning but not by empirical evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence that does exist about risk phenomena indicates that human reasoning about risk is highly unreliable.",

author = "Rae, {Andrew John} and Rob Alexander and McDermid, {John Alexander}",

year = "2012",

month = jul,

language = "English",

volume = "3",

pages = "2292--2301",

booktitle = "Proceedings of PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012",

publisher = "International Association of Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, IAPSAM ",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - The Science and Superstition of Quantitative Risk Assessment

AU - Rae, Andrew John

AU - Alexander, Rob

AU - McDermid, John Alexander

PY - 2012/7

Y1 - 2012/7

N2 - In safety, environmental, and financial regulation the public are often asked to accept estimates of a concept, “risk”, that they cannot directly perceive. Faith in these estimates is supported by logical reasoning but not by empirical evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence that does exist about risk phenomena indicates that human reasoning about risk is highly unreliable.

AB - In safety, environmental, and financial regulation the public are often asked to accept estimates of a concept, “risk”, that they cannot directly perceive. Faith in these estimates is supported by logical reasoning but not by empirical evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence that does exist about risk phenomena indicates that human reasoning about risk is highly unreliable.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84873178412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

VL - 3

SP - 2292

EP - 2301

BT - Proceedings of PSAM 11 & ESREL 2012

PB - International Association of Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management, IAPSAM

ER -

The Science and Superstition of Quantitative Risk Assessment

Abstract

Other files and links

Cite this