英文论文范文:The Environment and Environmental Hysteria [3]
论文作者:www.51lunwen.org论文属性:职称论文 Scholarship Papers登出时间:2015-04-23编辑:Cinderella点击率:7708
论文字数:2392论文编号:org201504230958193772语种:英语 English地区:中国价格:免费论文
关键词:
摘要:本文探讨了“过度环保主义”的现象,提醒人们注意环境保护与尊重科学之间的界限。
nation of carcinogenicity (119, 120).' I will return to this issue of decision-making amidst uncertainty at the end of section II.
Thirdly, the NRDC seems justified in the belief that the SAP was not upholding Fumento's ''real scientific process'' (424) as much as he thought they were. Furthermore, the NRDC has a justifiable complaint that as they did not have a representative present, they were not able to argue their perspective once the SAP deviated from 'pure science.' As Jasanoff reports, the SAP was not nearly as objective and fair as Fumento has portrayed them to be; It was not sufficiently representative of the scientific disciplines relevant to assessing pesticide risk. In particular, the panel contained no biostatisticians, although this professional group would by training have been the most sympathetic to [the types of analyses that the OPP had performed'(120)
Additionally, the fact that the panel actually did side with Uniroyal (Alar's manufacturer) in its acquittal of Alar, the NRDC can be seen as having a reasonable basis for rejecting the SAP's verdict. The NRDC's lack of representation at the meeting, in opposition to Uniroyal and the Apple growers is important, for given the uncertainty, rather than absoluteness of this decisionmaking process, it was impossible to have made decisions based solely on scientific fact. This is evidenced by the scientists' implementation of their 'policy values' when they decided that 'waiting for more data would not jeopardize the public exposed to diaminozide (121).'
Finally, I would argue that in a case such as Alar, where uncertainty and risk is high, the precautionary principle should govern decision making. In other words, decision-makers should err on the side of caution rather than on the side of boldness. I will use an analysis of Fumento's argument to provide a framework for explicating my assertion.
III: Uncertainty and the Precautionary Principle
Fumento firmly rejects ''erring on the side of caution'' as 'not even an argument at all; in fact it is not even a nonargument.' he justifies his position by claiming that 'You can't prove a negative. You can never say a chemical is not an animal carcinogen, simply because no matter how many tests have been run, the next one may show a positive result (425).' I want to object to his claims on three grounds: 1) his notion of proof is not shared by any legitimate scientist 2) his point about positive and negative claims is without any basis 3) the notion of 'proof' that is scientifically accepted provides a strong reason for adopting the precautionary principle, especially when the consequences of being mistaken are severe.
Fumento's assertions are correct only if we allow his fallacious definition of proof to stand. He is wrong to single out 'negative's' as not being able to stand up to this test of proof, because no hypo
thesis can stand up to this notion of proof. He apparently thinks that nothing is proven unless we can be sure that the next test will not refute our hypothesis. However, do not throw all your faith in science out the window just yet, for this notion of proof is a notion of proof which no scientist uses. Just because the sun might not rise tomorrow does not mean that it is not a scientific fact that it will. What science in fact uses as its standard of 'provenness' is based on 'statis
本论文由英语论文网提供整理,提供论文代写,英语论文代写,代写论文,代写英语论文,代写留学生论文,代写英文论文,留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。