Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Neglected Pillar of Science: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Advanced Performability Engineering

  • 812 Accesses

Abstract

Science, in general, is built on two pillars: on the one hand, confidence, obtained through research and development, analysis, argumentation, testing, data and information, and on the other humbleness, acknowledging that the knowledge—the justified beliefs—generated can be more or less strong and even erroneous. The main thesis of the present conceptual work is that the latter pillar—humbleness—has not been given the scientific attention it deserves. This pillar is founded on risk and uncertainty analysis, but the fields of this type of analysis are weak, lacking authority. The volume of research on risk and uncertainty analysis is small and the quality of current approaches and methods is not satisfactory. A strengthening of the fields of risk and uncertainty analysis is urgently and strongly needed. Several suggestions for how to meet these challenges are presented, including measures to stimulate further research on the fundamentals of these fields—and crossing established study borders, and initiatives to be taken by relevant societies to increase the awareness of the issue and deriving suitable strategies for how to develop risk and uncertainty analysis as a distinct science.

The chapter is to a large extent based on Aven [1], with permission from the publishers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Aven, T. (2020). The science of risk analysis. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Flanders, W. D., Lally, C. A., Zhu, B.-P., Henley, S. J., & Thun, M. J. (2003). Lung cancer mortality in relation to age, duration of smoking, and daily cigarette consumption. Cancer Research, 63, 6556–6562.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Yamaguchi, N., Kobayashi, Y. M., & Utsunomiya, O. (2000). Quantitative relationship between cumulative cigarette consumption and lung cancer mortality in Japan. International Journal of Epidemiology, 29(6), 963–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Proctor, R. N. (2011). The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link: Evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. Tobacco Control, 21, 87–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. ITC Netherlands Survey. (2011). Report on smokers’ awareness of the health risks of smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke. Ontario, Canada: University of Waterloo.

    Google Scholar 

  6. IPCC Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties: IPCC Cross Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  7. IPCC Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf. 2014. Accessed October 29, 2019.

  8. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report—Webpage (2018). https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/index.shtml. Assessed October 29, 2019.

  9. Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2015). An evaluation of the treatment of risk and uncertainties in the IPCC Reports on Climate Change. Risk Analysis, 35(4), 701–712 (Open access).

    Google Scholar 

  10. ISO 31000 Risk Management. https://www.iso.org/iso-31000-risk-management.html. Accessed October 29, 2019.

  11. Aven, T. (2017). The flaws of the ISO 31000 conceptualisation of risk. Journal of Risk and Reliability, Editorial, 231(5), 467–468 (Open access).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Aven, T., & Ylönen, M. (2019). The strong power of standards in the safety and risk fields: A threat to proper developments of these fields? Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 189, 279–286 (Open access).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Oxford English Dictionary. https://www.oed.com. Accessed October 29, 2019.

  14. Free Dictionary. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/. Accessed February 24, 2020.

  15. Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hansson, S. O., & Aven, T. (2014). Is risk analysis scientific? Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1173–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Aven, T., & Ylönen, M. (2018). The enigma of knowledge in the risk field. In T. Aven & E. Zio (Eds.), Knowledge in risk assessments. NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Aven, T. An emerging new risk analysis science: Foundations and implications. Risk Analysis, 38(5), 876–888 (Open access).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Aven, T., & Zio, E. (2014). Foundational issues in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1164–1172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lindley, D. V. (2000). The philosophy of statistics. The Statistician, 49, 293–337 (With discussions).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Aven, T. (2013). How to define and interpret a probability in a risk and safety setting. Discussion paper Safety Science, with general introduction by Associate Editor. Genserik Reniers, 51(1), 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stanford Encyclopedia Philosophy Interpretations of Probability (2011). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probability-interpret/. Accessed October 29, 2019.

  24. Aven, T. (2011a). Quantitative risk assessment: The scientific platform. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bergman, B. (2009). Conceptualistic pragmatism: A framework for Bayesian analysis? IIE Transactions, 41, 86–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Deming, W. E. (2000). The new economics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT CAES.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lewis, C. I. (1929). Mind and the world order: Outline of a theory of knowledge. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cowell, R. G., Dawid, A. P., Lauritzen, S. L., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (1999). Probabilistic networks and expert systems. New York: Springer.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Cooke, R. M. (1986). Conceptual fallacies in subjective probability. Topoi, 5, 21–27.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Lindley, D. V. (2006). Understanding uncertainty. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Bedford, T., & Cooke, R. (2001). Probabilistic risk analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Lindley, D. V. (1985). Making decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kaplan, S., & Garrick, B. J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1, 11–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Miller, B. (2013). When is consensus knowledge-based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement. Synthese, 190, 1293–1316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Flage, R., & Aven, T. (2009). Expressing and communicating uncertainty in relation to quantitative risk analysis (QRA). Reliability and Risk Analysis: Theory and Applications, 2(13), 9–18.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Aven, T., & Flage, R. (2018). Risk assessment with broad uncertainty and knowledge characterisations: An illustrating case study. In T. Aven & E. Zio (Eds.), Knowledge in risk assessments. NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer, Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Funtowicz, S. O., & Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25, 735–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kloprogge, P., van der Sluijs, J., & Petersen, A. (2005). A method for the analysis of assumptions in assessments. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kloprogge, P., van der Sluijs, J. P., & Petersen, A. C. (2011). A method for the analysis of assumptions in model-based environmental assessments. Environmental Modelling and Software, 26, 289–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Laes, E., Meskens, G., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2011). On the contribution of external cost calculations to energy system governance: The case of a potential large-scale nuclear accident. Energy Policy, 39, 5664–5673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. van der Sluijs, J., Craye, M., Futowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., & Risbey, J. (2005). Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model-based environmental assessment. Risk Analysis, 25(2), 481–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. van der Sluijs, J., Craye, M., Funtowicz, S., Kloprogge, P., Ravetz, J., & Risbey, J. (2005). Experiences with the NUSAP system for multidimensional uncertainty assessment in model based foresight studies. Water Science and Technology, 52(6), 133–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Aven, T. (2015). Implications of black swans to the foundations and practice of risk assessment and management. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 134, 83–91 (Open access).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gross, M. (2010). Ignorance and surprises. London: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Black swan. Norwegian Oil and Gas Association. https://www.norskoljeoggass.no/en/search/?q=black+swan. Accessed April 23, 2020.

  48. Borgonovo, E., & Plischke, E. (2015). Sensitivity analysis: A review of recent advances. European Journal of Operational Research, 248, 869–887.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  49. O’Hagan, A., & Oakley, J. E. (2004). Probability is perfect, but we can’t elicit it perfectly. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 85, 239–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Flage, R., Aven, T., Baraldi, P., & Zio, E. (2014). Concerns, challenges and directions of development for the issue of representing uncertainty in risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 34(7), 1196–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Aven, T. (2011b). On the interpretations of alternative uncertainty representations in a reliability and risk analysis context. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 96, 353–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Glossary Society for Risk Analysis. (2015). www.sra.org/resources. Accessed April 23, 2020.

  53. Core Subjects of Risk Analysis. (2017). www.sra.org/resources. Accessed April 23, 2020.

  54. Risk Analysis: Fundamental Principles. (2017). www.sra.org/resources. Accessed April 23, 2020.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

    Terje Aven

Authors
  1. Terje Aven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Terje Aven .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RAMS Consultants, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India

    Krishna B. Misra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Aven, T. (2021). The Neglected Pillar of Science: Risk and Uncertainty Analysis. In: Misra, K.B. (eds) Handbook of Advanced Performability Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55732-4_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55732-4_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55731-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55732-4

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation