Help talk:Assessment toolbox: Difference between revisions
(comments to Mikko's comments) |
(OIA) |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
{{discussion | {{discussion | ||
|Dispute= | |Dispute= How should we call the theory, methods, and toolbox to cover risk assessment. All suggested alternatives are | ||
*A Risk assessment | *A Risk assessment | ||
*B Impact assessment | *B Impact assessment | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
*E Just plainly ''Assessment'' | *E Just plainly ''Assessment'' | ||
*F Open assessment | *F Open assessment | ||
*G Open impact assessment | |||
|Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | |Outcome= Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) | ||
|Argumentation = | |Argumentation = | ||
| Line 35: | Line 37: | ||
{{attack|#2: |F is the best option, if we agree that openness in participation and collaborative work are important in the toolbox. It is a new term and therefore does not have an existing (too narrow) scope).|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:50, 18 December 2007 (EET)}} | {{attack|#2: |F is the best option, if we agree that openness in participation and collaborative work are important in the toolbox. It is a new term and therefore does not have an existing (too narrow) scope).|--[[User:Jouni|Jouni]] 13:50, 18 December 2007 (EET)}} | ||
{{comment|#3: |G is also a good option, as it both emphasizes the openness and specifies that we are talking about '''impacts''' (covering both human-actuated and natural deleterious phenomena, as well as human interventions). A good term is descriptive enough to allow "educated laymen" to roughly guess, when hearing the term the first time, what the term means.|--[[User:Erkki Kuusisto|Erkki Kuusisto]] 16:12, 18 December 2007 (EET)}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 14:12, 18 December 2007
Assumption 1
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#1:: . Using causal diagrams means describing the risk situations as states of entities, as (so called event-medium composite) objects and their properties, given their causal relations. Flow charts consist of process objects and mass flows without explicit description of causalities, and mind maps allow for all kinds of relations between any kinds of objects. Flow charts and mind maps are thus incoherent with causal diagrams and should be not allowed as alternative means alongside causal diagrams. Also, it is primarily the understanding of causalities between phenomena that is striven for in carrying out assessments, which is a strong argument for using causal diagrams. --Mikko Pohjola 07:05, 18 December 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--#2:: . There are no objections for using mind maps and/or flow charts in organizing ones thinking in relation to risk situations, if seen applicable or necessary. The understanding created with using mind maps and flow charts should anyhow be translated into the form of a causal diagram for a proper description about the issue. --Mikko Pohjola 07:05, 18 December 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
Assumption 4
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
←--#1:: . The variable validation should be done using data about the part of reality that the variable intends to describe, not data about the variable itself. After all, the variable itself is merely an object describing reality that is created in order to make it easier to operate with the information we have about the reality, it is not the same as reality. --Mikko Pohjola 07:05, 18 December 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) |
Assumption 6
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement:
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--#1:: . E is the best option. All of the more or less established terms mentioned above are already somewhat fixed (although varyingly) in different people's minds. Using any of these terms to describe something that is meant to be broader than any of them just tends to lead to confusion and resistance to change among people who already possess some (fixed?) interpretation of these terms. --Mikko Pohjola 07:05, 18 December 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--#2:: . F is the best option, if we agree that openness in participation and collaborative work are important in the toolbox. It is a new term and therefore does not have an existing (too narrow) scope). --Jouni 13:50, 18 December 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ----#3:: . G is also a good option, as it both emphasizes the openness and specifies that we are talking about impacts (covering both human-actuated and natural deleterious phenomena, as well as human interventions). A good term is descriptive enough to allow "educated laymen" to roughly guess, when hearing the term the first time, what the term means. --Erkki Kuusisto 16:12, 18 December 2007 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |