PRECAUTION: A New Way To Make Decisions

[Zeno Swijtink]

PRECAUTION: A New Way To Make Decisions

By Peter Montague

Here is a very brief set of PowerPoint slides that explains the
precautionary principle and compares it to the existing way of making
decisions.

https://www.precaution.org/lib/new_decision_making.ppt


Rachel's Precaution Reporter #132
"Foresight and Precaution, in the News and in the World"
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
https://<https://rachel.org>www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation, click <https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=155>here.

[handy]

Good Grief! Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. This is just a feeble attempt to put a pretty face on self-righteous Luddism!

Thank Mystery that these misanthropic morons weren't around prior to the discovery of most of modern technology. Humanity would still be in caves, with a short miserable lifespan.

Zeno, I hope you're just trolling. I truly don't think you're stupid enough to believe this crap.

Better living through reckless experimentation!
Uncertainty is a Given.
Adapt, or follow the dinosaurs.



PRECAUTION: A New Way To Make Decisions

By Peter Montague

Here is a very brief set of PowerPoint slides that explains the
precautionary principle and compares it to the existing way of making
decisions.

https://www.precaution.org/lib/new_decision_making.ppt


Rachel's Precaution Reporter #132
"Foresight and Precaution, in the News and in the World"
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
https://<https://rachel.org>www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation, click <https://secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=155>here.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Actually, I do believe most of this "crap."

Governmental risk-analysis and so-called cost/benefit analysis has subverted the wisdom of traditional decision theory that goes back to d'Alembert and Bernoulli, and culminated in the work of Savage and de Finetti, and this modest formulation falls squarely within the traditional framework.

Your posting only shows hot air rhetoric, without any knowledge of the history of the theoretical foundations of decision theory nor the slightest hint that you ever stepped out of your backyard garden!

This formulation of the precautionary approach does not imply anything about being risk-averse or risk seeking. It just goes back to the fuller set of evidence and considerations that a rational approach to decision making needs to look into.


Good Grief! Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. This is just a feeble attempt to put a pretty face on self-righteous Luddism!

Thank Mystery that these misanthropic morons weren't around prior to the discovery of most of modern technology. Humanity would still be in caves, with a short miserable lifespan.

Zeno, I hope you're just trolling. I truly don't think you're stupid enough to believe this crap.

Better living through reckless experimentation!
Uncertainty is a Given.
Adapt, or follow the dinosaurs.

[MsTerry]

Ohmy, it looks like the boys got a little hot under the collar.
It is obvious that this wasn't written by a lawyer, which leaves, unfortunately, a lot of wiggle room.
As you know, ZG, everything is a chemical compound and can be harmful under certain circumstances to certain people.
If you where to apply these rules to herbs, Rosemary's Garden would be out of bussiness



Actually, I do believe most of this "crap."

Governmental risk-analysis and so-called cost/benefit analysis has subverted the wisdom of traditional decision theory that goes back to d'Alembert and Bernoulli, and culminated in the work of Savage and de Finetti, and this modest formulation falls squarely within the traditional framework.

Your posting only shows hot air rhetoric, without any knowledge of the history of the theoretical foundations of decision theory nor the slightest hint that you ever stepped out of your backyard garden!

This formulation of the precautionary approach does not imply anything about being risk-averse or risk seeking. It just goes back to the fuller set of evidence and considerations that a rational approach to decision making needs to look into.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Ohmy, it looks like the boys got a little hot under the collar.
It is obvious that this wasn't written by a lawyer, which leaves, unfortunately, a lot of wiggle room.
As you know, ZG, everything is a chemical compound and can be harmful under certain circumstances to certain people.
If you where to apply these rules to herbs, Rosemary's Garden would be out of bussiness

Frankly, Lulu, you are just repeating without understanding.

Not different from many people who scream "precautionary principle" to further their own pet fear.

[handy]

[QUOTE=Zeno Swijtink;51890]Actually, I do believe most of this "crap."

O-o-okay... (recalibrate estimate) :wink:

Governmental risk-analysis and so-called cost/benefit analysis has subverted the wisdom of traditional decision theory that goes back to d'Alembert and Bernoulli, and culminated in the work of Savage and de Finetti, and this modest formulation falls squarely within the traditional framework.
Governments don't do risk analysis, individuals do. Government can risk only what it has already taken from productive individuals. (Of course, with a cooperative Fed to print money on demand, that Can include what it promises to take in the future.)

Don't know d'Alembert, and only knowledge of Bernoulli is regarding fluid dynamics. I've read some of Jim Savage's work regarding statistical anaysis and gambling, but am not familiar with de Finetti.

Your posting only shows hot air rhetoric,
????? awww,sh-t! Is my rhetoric showin' again?
without any knowledge of the history of the theoretical foundations of decision theory
ya... my study of decision theory/games theory/general systems/operations research/cybernetics/self-organizing systems has been limited (so far) to the works of Norbert Wiener, Ross Ashby, Warren McCulloch, Stafford Beer, Gregory Bateson, R. Buckminster Fuller, Richard Feynman and a few other oddballs.

nor the slightest hint that you ever stepped out of your backyard garden! Been bouncin' round Big Campus Earth for 61+ years. When it comes to my backyard garden, your cluelessness is truly something to behold.

This formulation of the precautionary approach
At least you use "approach" instead of
'principle". Caution is always "pre".

does not imply anything about being risk-averse
Better read it again...take your time...

Have fun, be careful,
Best regards,

[MsTerry]

Frankly, MsTerry, you are just repeating without understanding.

Not different from many people who scream "precautionary principle" to further their own pet fear.
Come on now, professor, anybody can shoot a hole in that proposal.
Yes it seems very reasonable, but who is in charge?
Who is going to make the decision?
Or is that your pet fear?

[Zeno Swijtink]

Nobody is in charge anymore, Lulu!



Come on now, professor, anybody can shoot a hole in that proposal.
Yes it seems very reasonable, but who is in charge?
Who is going to make the decision?
Or is that your pet fear?

[MsTerry]

I figured you would say that.
So maybe you should start educating your students by not showing up!
That will teach them a lesson.


Nobody is in charge anymore, MsTerry!

[Zeno Swijtink]

I figured you would say that.
So maybe you should start educating your students by not showing up!
That will teach them a lesson.

I thought we were on a first name basis, Lulu? What went awry?? :tennis:

[MsTerry]

I can't believe my eyes, Gerardus, but the professor is trolling!!!


I thought we were on a first name basis, MsTerry? What went awry?? :tennis:

[Zeno Swijtink]

I can't believe my eyes, Zeno, but the professor is trolling!!!

It takes two to troll, Lulu!

Your ZG

[MsTerry]

It takes two to roll, MsTerry!

Your ZG

So, that makes it official,
From now on I will only call you ZG.
But when are you going to call me?

[Zeno Swijtink]

So, that makes it official,
From now on I will only call you ZG.
But wah are you going to call me?

Thanks Lulu!

[MsTerry]

You are my greatest inspiration!Thanks MsTerry!
Your ZG
That is so sweet of you!