, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

On the Epistemology of the Precautionary Principle

  • J. Adam Carter
  • Martin PetersonEmail author
Original Article


In this paper we present two distinctly epistemological puzzles that arise for one who aspires to defend some plausible version of the precautionary principle. The first puzzle involves an application of contextualism in epistemology; and the second puzzle concerns the task of defending a plausible version of the precautionary principle that would not be invalidated by de minimis.


Epistemic State Precautionary Principle Knowledge Attribution Contextualist Approach Epistemic Standard 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ashford, N. A. (2007). The legacy of the precautionary principle in US law: The rise of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment as undermining factors in health, safety and environmental protection. Implementing the precautionary principle. approaches from the Nordic Countries, EU and USA. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  2. Aven, T. (2011). On different types of uncertainties in the context of the precautionary principle. Risk Analysis, 31, 1515–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, T. (2005). Classic invariantism, relevance, and warranted assertability manœuvers. The Philosophical Quarterly, 55, 328–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bodansky, D. (1992). Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle: Commentary: The precautionary principle. Environment, 34, 4–5.Google Scholar
  5. Charnley, G. (1999). President’s message. RISK Newsletter, 19, 2.Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, S. (2005). Future technologies, dystopic futures and the precautionary principle. Ethics and Information Technology, 7, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, S. (2004). Contextualism defended. In Steup and Sosa (pp. 56–62).Google Scholar
  8. DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 913–929.Google Scholar
  9. DeRose, K. (1999). Contextualism: An explanation and defense. The Blackwell guide to epistemology, 187–205.Google Scholar
  10. Gärdenfors, P., & Sahlin, N. E. (1982). Unreliable probabilities, risk taking, and decision making. Synthese, 53(3), 361–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gray, J. S., & Brewers, J. M. (1996). Towards a Scientific Definition of the Precautionary Principle. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 32(11), 768.Google Scholar
  12. Harris, J., & Holm, S. (1999). Precautionary principle stifles discovery. Nature, 400, 398.Google Scholar
  13. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  14. Levi, I. (1990). Hard choices: Decision making under unresolved conflict. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Manson, N. (2002). Formulating the precautionary principle. Environmental Ethics, 24, 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Montague, P. (2008). The precautionary principle in the real world. Environmental Research Foundation. January 21.Google Scholar
  17. Morris, J. (2000). Defining the precautionary principle. In Morris, ed. Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Woburn, Mass.: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. Munthe, C. (2011). The price of precaution and the ethics of risk (Vol. 6). Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Nollkaemper, P. A. (1996). What you risk reveals what you value, and other dilemma’s in the legal assault on risk. The precautionary principle and international law: The challenge of implementation, 31, 73–94.Google Scholar
  20. Peterson, M. (2002). What is a de minimis risk? Risk Management, 4, 47–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peterson, M. (2006). The precautionary principle is incoherent. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 595–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Resnik, D. (2003). Is the precautionary principle unscientific? Studies in the history and philosohpy of science, part C: Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, 34, 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 5, 889–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sandin, P. (2004). The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environmental Values, 13, 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sandin, P., Peterson, M., Hansson, S. O., Rudén, C., & Juthe, A. (2002). Five charges against the precautionary principle. Journal of Risk Research, 5, 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Steele, K. (2006). The precautionary principle: a new approach to public decision-making? Law, Probability and Risk, 5(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. The San Francisco Precaution Ordinance (2002). Accessed 17 Feb 2014)
  29. UN General Assembly (1992). Rio declaration on environment and development. Agenda, 21.Google Scholar
  30. United Kingdom Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (UK-ILGRA). (2002).
  31. Vancouver Statement on the Globalization and the Industrialization of Agriculture. (1998).
  32. Whipple, C. G. (1987). De minimis risk: Contemporary issues in risk analysis, vol 2. Plenum Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle (1998)
  34. Zander, J. (2010). The application of the precautionary principle in practice: Comparative dimensions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Section for Philosophy and EthicsEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Eidyn Research Centre, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations