Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
Coastal and Estuarine Risk Assessment - Chapter 4

Enhancing Belief during Causality Assessments: Cognitive Idols or Bayes’s Theorem? - Tại trung tâm của tất cả các đánh giá rủi ro là một đánh giá quan hệ nhân quả. quan hệ nhân quả đánh giá xác định các mối quan hệ nhân-quả mà nguy cơ được ước tính. Mặc dù vậy, nhiều người đánh giá rủi ro sinh thái chú ý ít hơn so với bảo hành cẩn thận xác định quan hệ nhân quả, và tập trung hơn vào định lượng rủi ro. sự cưỡng bách để định lượng cho lợi ích của định lượng (tức là, Medawar của idola quantitatis 1 ) góp phần đến. | 4 Enhancing Belief during Causality Assessments Cognitive Idols or Bayes s Theorem Michael C. Newman and David A. Evans CONTENTS 41 Difficulty in Identifying Causality 4.2 Bacon s Idols of the Tribe 43 Idols of the Theater and Certainty 4.4 Assessing Causality in the Presence of Cognitive and Social Biases 4.5 Bayesian Methods Can Enhance Belief or Disbelief 4.6 A More Detailed Exploration of Bayes s Approach 4 Al The Bayesian Context 4.6.2. What Is Probability 4.6.3 A Closer Look at Bayes s Theorem 4.7 Two Applications of the Bayesian Method 4.7.1 Successful Adjustment of Belief during Medical Diagnosis 4.7.2 Applying Bayesian Methods to Estuarine Fish Kills rnd Pfiesteria. 4.7.2.1 Divergent Belief about Pfiesteria piscicida Causing f requent Fish Kills 4.7.2.2 A Bayesian Vantage for the Pfiesteria-ỉn ữCQ Fish Kill Hypothesis 4.8 Conclusion Acknowledgments References 4.1 DIFFICULTY IN IDENTIFYING CAUSALITY At the center of every risk assessment is a causality assessment. Causality assessments identify the cause-effect relationship for which risk is to be estimated. Despite 2002 CRC Press LLC this many ecological risk assessments pay less-than-warranted attention to carefully identifying causality and concentrate more on risk quantification. The compulsion to qualify for qualification s sake i.e. Medawar s idola quantitatis contíibutes to this imbalance. Also those who use logical shortcuts for assigning plausible caus ity in their daily lives2 are often unaware tliiit theyare applying shortcuts in then professions. A zeal for method transparency e.g. U.S. EPA3 can also diminish soundness if sound methods require an unfamiliar vantage for assessing causality. Whatever the reasons the imbalance between efforts employed in causality assessment and risk estimation is evident throughout the ecological risk assessment literature. Associated dangers are succinctly described by the quote The mathematical box is a beautiful way of wrapping up a problem but it will not hold