, Volume 81, Issue 2, pp 297–304 | Cite as

On the Epistemology of the Precautionary Principle: Reply to Steglich-Petersen

  • J. Adam Carter
  • Martin PetersonEmail author
Critical Discussion


In a recent paper in this journal (2014), we proposed two novel puzzles associated with the precautionary principle. Both are puzzles that materialise, we argue, once we investigate the principle through an epistemological lens, and each constitutes a philosophical hurdle for any proponent of a plausible version of the precautionary principle. Steglich-Petersen (Erkenntnis 1–9, 2014) claims, also in this journal, that he has resolved our puzzles. In this short note, we explain why we remain skeptical.


  1. Aven, T. (2011). On different types of uncertainties in the context of the precautionary principle. Risk Analysis, 31(10), 1515–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carter, J. A., & Peterson, M. (2015). On the epistemology of the precautionary principle. Erkenntnis, 80(1), 1–13.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, S. (1998). Contextualist solutions to epistemological problems: Scepticism, Gettier, and the lottery. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 76(2), 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. DeRose, K. (1992). Contextualism and knowledge attributions. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 52, 913–929.Google Scholar
  5. DeRose, K. (2009). The case for contextualism: Knowledge, skepticism, and context: Knowledge, Skepticism, and context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hawthorne, J. (2004). Knowledge and lotteries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Manson, N. (2002). Formulating the precautionary principle. Environmental Ethics, 24(3), 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Munthe, C. (2011). The price of precaution and the ethics of risk. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Peterson, M. (2003). Transformative decision rules. Erkenntnis, 58, 71–85.Google Scholar
  10. Sandin, P. (1999). Dimensions of the precautionary principle. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 5(5), 889–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sandin, P. (2004). The precautionary principle and the concept of precaution. Environmental Values, 13(4), 461–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and practical interests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Steglich-Petersen, A. (2014). The epistemology of the precautionary principle: Two puzzles resolved. Erkenntnis: 1–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eidyn Research Centre, School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language SciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations