Journals Information
Universal Journal of Management Vol. 4(10), pp. 565 - 574
DOI: 10.13189/ujm.2016.041006
Reprint (PDF) (245Kb)
Epistemic versus Pragmatic Justification of Risk Analysis
Ole A. Lindaas *
Principal Analyst, EVRY, Norway
ABSTRACT
A key assumption underlying analyses of risk is that analyzing risks helps generate justified beliefs about risks. Hence, by analyzing risks, we become wiser in our dealings with risks. However, what exactly is it to have a justified belief, and, moreover, is proper justification of risk beliefs within reach? These probing questions are the topics of this article in which two different perspectives on the justification for risk beliefs are examined, labeled epistemic and pragmatic justification. While epistemic justification amounts to showing that risk beliefs signify knowledge, pragmatic justification amounts to showing that risk beliefs serve as useful signposts for how to act. Arguably, much of the difficulty of providing a cogent basis for risk analysis originates from our conception of justification as only meaning epistemic justification, with this making us ignorant of the pragmatic route to justification. A point advanced in this article is that the chances of justification will be significantly improved by a broadening of perspective to include epistemic as well as pragmatic justification of risk beliefs.
KEYWORDS
Risk Analysis, Knowledge, Epistemic Justification, Pragmatic Justification
Cite This Paper in IEEE or APA Citation Styles
(a). IEEE Format:
[1] Ole A. Lindaas , "Epistemic versus Pragmatic Justification of Risk Analysis," Universal Journal of Management, Vol. 4, No. 10, pp. 565 - 574, 2016. DOI: 10.13189/ujm.2016.041006.
(b). APA Format:
Ole A. Lindaas (2016). Epistemic versus Pragmatic Justification of Risk Analysis. Universal Journal of Management, 4(10), 565 - 574. DOI: 10.13189/ujm.2016.041006.