New thoughts and discussions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is intended for sharing your latest Intarese related thoughts and discussion topics that are already worth disseminating among interested people, but that might not be ripe enough to deserve their own pages yet.

1.6.2006 On argumentation analysis for risk assessment

Participants: Jouni&Mikko

  • the role of argumentation analysis in risk assessment is to fill the gap between explicit modelling/calculation and unstructured discussion
    • helps e.g. in making complicated models easier to intrepret by non-experts and brings out the essentials of a discourse
  • the primary goal concerning argumentation analysis' utilization for risk assessment is to make it a common, easy-to-use, a priori method for risk assessors
  • also use of argumentation theory as an a posteriori method for reconstructing discourses afterwards can be fruitful
    • this line of use is probably necessary in explicating the usefulness of the method
  • discussion in Science about health risks/benefits of salmon shall be made an example for using argumentation analysis in risk assessment
  • in this example the assessor (as an "outsider") chooses the focus and scope of the argumentation analysis
    • if the basic standpoint of the analysis, and thus the point of view, is chosen solely based on the first article by Hites et al., it would be difficult to fit all the replies in the same picture (the disagreement space varies in settings Hites vs. Rembold, Hites vs. Tuomisto, etc...)