Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:30, 17 December 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Precautionary principle article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Environment: Climate change This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Climate change. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Web page potpourri". Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. January, 2004. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) David Hardman (2009). "Judgment and decision making: psychological perspectives". Wiley-Blackwell.

Ignores misuse of Precautionary Principle (Approach) biased by value judgment and vested interests

Precautionary principle is unobjective and anti-science in the sense that it encourages Kuhnian value-based or opinion-based judgments turning the matter into pure political fodder. This eschews Hume-ian objectivity and opens the field to all kinds of manipulation based on political interests, vested (financial or career) interests, etc. If I push a policy measure based on a fat tail that has never been observed in nature, therefore has never existed, this is nothing more than policy by figment of the imagination. This is all stuff of liberal idealists who think they know what is right (the truth?) for the common good but their values and judgments are not based on objective fact based determinations.Danleywolfe (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment but this is not a forum for discussing the topic. If you have a suggestion for content and sources to support the content, please bring it. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Black swan and GMOs

Discussion is ongoing here Talk:Genetically_modified_food_controversies#The_Precautionary_Principle_.28with_Application_to_the_Genetic_Modification_of_Organisms.29. Let's keep this in one place, shall we? Jytdog (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

sources i have been looking at

Things have evolved a lot in the past ten years on the ground, especially between the US and EU with regard to PP/risk assessment. A lot of blending, from both sides. A lot of this article is based on 15 year old ideas.

• PMID 22430837 (review)
• PMID 21332494 (review)
• PMID 20850572 (review)
• 2013 article that has some very good review parts (need to use those and avoid the [[WP:PRIMARY[[ aspects: http://www.hunton.com/files/Publication/7aeacc21-e8c1-41d6-a6be-30800f21afb6/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/bd8ef806-a952-4da6-9e7d-bc6c070d95e7/Trade_the_Precautionary_Principle_and_Post-Modern_Regulatory_Process.pdf
• 2013 paper - unfortunately cannot cite this but very useful http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/rpp/J-Wiener_Reg__Gov.pdf
• 2010 book http://books.google.com/books?id=YbmywR22OuwC&dq
• 2007 - about as old as we should go - this too is mixed secondary/primary: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=wmelpr
• 2007 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1007404

Whitepapers not reliable sources?

I think there is some confusion here. This whitepaper is not a scientific research paper noting empirical results from a series of experiments - this I would think would need to be peer reviewed prior to publishing. What we should be discussing is about a "whitepaper" which by virtue of it being available publicly by a reliable source sufficient as a source for new ideas. I've seen whitepapers on Misplaced Pages accepted writ-large that are published by large consultancies - accepted without peer review or some equivalent. I imagine they are acceptable given the re-known/respectability of the consultancy (e.g., Accenture, Deloitte, etc). So why then isn't a whitepaper from a re-known author, mathematician, MIT professor and politician published under the auspices of NYU not considered reliable?

Vergil Den 16:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

When it comes to scientific fact of implementation of theory, we generally require peer-review to establish the idea has some WP:WEIGHT in the scientific community. The source is still written to portray thinking about a scientific topic, and there are only select instances where a self-published source is acceptable or has sufficient weight for inclusion. This isn't one of those cases. WP:FRINGE also has some application here certain applications of the precautionary principle conflict with the scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs, and we can't give those ideas undue prominence per that guideline and WP:NPOV. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not a paper on natural science nor is it a paper on medicine, rather it is a risk management paper on the precautionary principle applicable to a myriad of domains and therefore not subject to an assessment by the scientific community by default or as a requirement. Most of the paper addresses core concepts logically and mathematically and only portion of the paper address its application, in this case, GMOs and only "an example" of its application which by the way isn't fundamentally a new thing. By your criteria any statute, regulation, or legal opinion that cites the precautionary principle against any scientific concept must be excluded, which by any reasonable measure, appears to be an attempt to censor.

Vergil Den 22:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

First, please remember to WP:THREAD your posts and sign them by using four tildes at the end of your post. Risk management is a scientific discipline, especially in the field of natural sciences as applies here. Also please refrain from edit warring the content back in. You need WP:CONSENSUS here to add content back in at this point as I've discussed on your talk page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The consensus rule doesn't apply to attempts to censor valid content. You have failed to provide a valid reason the content I posted is inappropriate for the article. Feel free to edit the content to address your concerns.

Vergil Den 01:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Vergilden — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vergilden (talk • contribs)

It looks like you're overall new to the edit process at Misplaced Pages, but consensus is one of our core policies. When your edit has been rejected, you need to gain consensus for it on the talk page in order to re-add it again. You can't just keep edit warring it back in as you've done. Another core policy is WP:RS or using reliable sources. In this case, something that is self-published is not considered reliable. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Vergilden's edit. Therefore, we presently have a 2/3 consensus for the edit. However, @Vergulden:: please read the warning directly above mine and those placed by the same user on your talk page. Please also read this: WP:BRD. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Consensus isn't determined by WP:VOTE. As of right now, we have a policy based argument from removal that hasn't and really cannot be dispelled for this particular type of source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

1. PP is not a scientific principle, it is a risk management principle and therefore content related to it does not need to be peer reviewed - it simply needs to be published with the consent of the authors.

2. PP is applicable to a number of different domains such as finance, tech, natural science, medicine, etc. If it was posted in the domain specific article, I could see why some might object. However, it is being posted under the PP topic, not the domain specific areas.

3. Nassim Taleb is one of the most authoritative source (some would argue, the authoritative source) on risk management which is the fundamental point of the PP. His co-authors are highly respected in their field and are publishing under the auspices of NYU.

4. Consensus has been reached that the content should stay

You keep moving the goal posts which indicates to me that you are trying to censor the content or to be a jobsworth.

Vergil Den 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)Vergilden

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Environment articles
• Unknown-importance Environment articles
• WikiProject Climate change articles
• Start-Class European Union articles
• Mid-importance European Union articles
• WikiProject European Union articles
• Start-Class Philosophy articles
• Unknown-importance Philosophy articles
• Start-Class ethics articles
• Unknown-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Mid-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press