• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Bacon, Boole, the EPA, and Scientific Standards
【24h】

Bacon, Boole, the EPA, and Scientific Standards

机译：培根，布尔，EPA和科学标准

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The scientific standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) include the use of retrospective meta-analysis. This analysis entails a use of the theory of probability that is only a simulation and cannot accurately measure the confidence that should be placed in the results. The uncertainty necessary for probability is, in a retrospective study, simulated rather than real. There are three logical forms for establishing a proposition. In the logic of the syllogism, a proposition is established by deduction from assumed propositions. In the logic of the physical sciences, a proposition is established by its ability to predict the outcomes of future experiments. In the logic of the courtroom, a proposition is established by its ability to explain past events. The logic of the courtroom operates under the handicap of working with nonrepeatable events. It is more subject to the preferences of the judge than the logic of the physical sciences or that of the syllogism. Because the logic of the courtroom is less reliable than either the logic of the physical sciences or that of the syllogism, it is the logic of last resort, i.e., it is used only when the other two are not applicable. Under the EPA scientific standards, the logic of the courtroom is accepted for establishing propositions about the physical world. As the logic of the courtroom is less reliable than that of the physical sciences, this practice increases the likelihood of errors.
机译：环境保护署（EPA）的科学标准包括使用回顾性荟萃分析。这种分析需要使用概率理论，该理论只是一种模拟，无法准确地衡量应放在结果中的置信度。在回顾性研究中，概率所必需的不确定性是模拟的，而不是真实的。建立命题有三种逻辑形式。在三段论的逻辑中，通过从假设的命题中推论来建立一个命题。在物理科学的逻辑中，命题是通过其预测未来实验结果的能力而建立的。按照法庭的逻辑，命题是由其解释过去事件的能力建立的。法庭的逻辑是在处理不可重复的事件的障碍下进行的。它比物理科学或三段论的逻辑更受法官的偏爱。因为法庭的逻辑不如物理科学或三段论的逻辑可靠，所以它是万不得已的逻辑，即只有在其他两个都不适用时才使用。根据EPA的科学标准，法庭的逻辑被接受来建立关于物理世界的主张。由于法庭的逻辑不如物理科学可靠，因此这种做法增加了出错的可能性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号