Help talk:Assessment toolbox
Assumption 1
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: Also mind maps and flow charts should be allowed for describing risk situations
Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is 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) |
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: It should be stated that, although causal diagrams have to be used, alternative causal pathways are possible. Also causal diagrams have to be validated
Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is found) (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--1: . Ok I am a beginner, but wanted to try and possibly contribute to your method. I am not a philosopher, but I think the part about causal relationships need to be clarified. An area of risks sciences is trying to deal with situations where such causal relationships are very uncertain and this should be taken into account. It also seems someone need help me with formatting --Luca Bucchini 11:17, 21 January 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)
|
Assumption 4
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: "Variable validation using data about the variable" is inconsistent.
Closing statement: Agreed and the text changed accordingly. (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: How should we call the theory, methods, and toolbox to cover risk assessment. All suggested alternatives are
Closing statement: Under discussion (to be changed when a conclusion is 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) ----4: . I am in favour of G, but it also seems to me that missing the risk assessment component is a pity. You can always expand the use of a tool, but a too broad definition is usually not a good idea, if it does not sound familiar to people, even if educated --Luca Bucchini 11:17, 21 January 2008 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) |