Comments on: Precautionary Principles and the Cost of Caution

By: Vegan GMO Redux « Pythagorean Crank

Vegan GMO Redux « Pythagorean Crank — Wed, 28 Sep 2011 01:53:35 +0000

[...] precautionary principle sounds fine on face value but what’s better is risk analysis. Science can’t prove [...]

By: Eric Baumholder

Eric Baumholder — Sun, 30 May 2010 16:38:13 +0000

I wish to quibble over the statement, “Empirical science never provides certainty.” The history of science is littered with prime examples of empirical certainty, and these constitute the class of falsified theories. (e.g., phlogiston, MMR and autism, etc.)

In fact, a la Popper, falsifiability is an essential component of any empirical claim.

In the context of the Precautionary Principle and risk assessment/management generally, it is insufficient — indeed, fundamentally vacuous — to advert to the existence of “unknown risks” inhering in a new technology. Since the claim cannot be falsified, it’s at best a waste of time. (Stated the other way around, the vast majority of unknown risks — verging on unity — are, and will forever remain, unknown because they simply do not exist.)

To be non-vacuous, a statement regarding the risk of a new technology must be expressed as an hypothesis. That is, something testable and falsifiable. If falsified, it’s empirically certain not to be a risk. If validated, the question becomes whether the risk is manageable, or at least acceptable, in light of the benefits of the technology, on a cost-benefit basis.

Seen in this light, the empirical certainty that results from the falsification of actually hypothesized risks, which result from a growing list of environmental and health tests of GM crops, can actually demonstrate — conclusively — that the products of agricultural biotechnology are safe until proven otherwise.

By: Andre

Andre — Fri, 28 May 2010 22:22:05 +0000

If you read French here is an excellent analysis of the French situation/disaster.

The Constitution includes since 2005 an Environmental Charter with the followng Article 5

“When the occurrence of any damage, albeit unpredictable in the current state of scientific knowledge, may seriously and irreversibly harm the environment, public authorities shall, with due respect for the principle of precaution and the areas within their jurisdiction, ensure the implementation of procedures for risk assessment and the adoption of temporary measures commensurate with the risk involved in order to deal with the occurrence of such damage.”

(translation from the French Assembly website — “deal with” should be replaced by “prevent”)

By: Anastasia Bodnar

Anastasia Bodnar — Fri, 28 May 2010 20:05:30 +0000

Yikes. I wish it were another way, but I too fear that the public is too prone to accepting hyperbole at face value to even start having a rational conversation. Perhaps Clark uses the “royal academic we”?

By: pdiff

pdiff — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:43:42 +0000

You say ” We need rationally to consider all of the risks involved in our choices …” above. I’m not convinced this is even possible anymore. “We” as the general public, no longer have the education or even the foundations in basic logical decision making, to evaluate risks. Add to that the bombardment of “anybodies come experts” talking heads in the media or the dime a dozen “authority” web sites, and people are all too easily mislead, fooled, and used. The anti-vax crowd is a prime example of this. Maybe I’m just being too cynical this morning, but I have a hard time seeing a way around this.