Risk Agoras: Using Dialectical Argumentation to Debate Risk

Abstract

Public policy debates about the risks of new technologies and substances often hinge on statistical tests of scientific hypotheses. Such tests have the appearance of mechanistic rules but in fact require subjective judgement and interpretation. Particular interpretations developed originally for experiments in agricultural research after WWI have become accepted as standard scientific practice across the social and biomedical sciences. Among other flaws, these standards ignore the consequences of potential errors of statistical inference, consequences which may be uneven in their distribution, impacts and durations. To begin to redress this situation, the authors propose the use of a form of dialectical argumentation, such as Habermas's discourse ethics, to frame debate over errors of statistical inference in areas of environmental and health risk. If applied, such a framework could enable wider and more effective democratic participation in risk debates and better understanding by non-experts of the issues involved. Such understanding in turn could lead to greater appreciation of the extent of subjective interpretation and judgment involved in scientific assessments of risk.