From Ideal to Real Risk : Philosophy of Causation Meets Risk Analysis

Abstract

A question has been raised in recent years as to whether the risk field, including analysis, assessment and management, ought to be considered a discipline on its own. As suggested by Aven (2012), unification of the risk field would require a common understanding of basic concepts, such as risk and probability; hence, more discussion is needed of what he calls ‘foundational issues’. In this paper, we show that causation is a foundational issue of risk, and that a proper understanding of it is crucial. We propose that some old ideas about the nature of causation must be abandoned in order to overcome certain persisting challenges facing risk experts over the last decade. In particular, we discuss the challenge of including causally relevant knowledge from the local context when studying risk. Although it is uncontroversial that the receptor plays an important role for risk evaluations, we show how the implementation of receptor-based frameworks is hindered by methodological shortcomings that can be traced back to Humean orthodoxies about causation. We argue that the first step toward the development of frameworks better suited to make realistic risk predictions is to reconceptualize causation, by examining a philosophical alternative to the Humean understanding . In this paper, we show how our preferred account, causal dispositionalism, offers a different perspective in how risk is evaluated and understood.

From Ideal to Real Risk. Philosophy of Causation Meets Risk Analysis .