量化无法量化的东西

IF 3 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Human and Ecological Risk Assessment Pub Date : 2019-07-12 DOI:10.1002/9781119483342.ch10
P. Tetlock
{"title":"量化无法量化的东西","authors":"P. Tetlock","doi":"10.1002/9781119483342.ch10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Every day, countless experts offer innumerable opinions in a dizzying array of forums. Cynics groan that expert communities seem ready at hand for virtually any issue in the political spotlight—communities from which governments or their critics can mobilize platoons of pundits to make prepackaged cases on a moment’s notice. Although there is nothing odd about experts playing prominent roles in debates, it is odd to keep score, to track expert performance against explicit benchmarks of accuracy and rigor. And that is what I have strug­ gled to do in twenty years of research of soliciting and scoring experts’ judgments on a wide range of issues. The key term is “struggled.” For, if it were easy to set standards for judging judgment that would be hon­ ored across the opinion spectrum and not glibly dismissed as another sneaky effort to seize the high ground for a favorite cause, someone would have patented the process long ago.","PeriodicalId":13118,"journal":{"name":"Human and Ecological Risk Assessment","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying the Unquantifiable\",\"authors\":\"P. Tetlock\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/9781119483342.ch10\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Every day, countless experts offer innumerable opinions in a dizzying array of forums. Cynics groan that expert communities seem ready at hand for virtually any issue in the political spotlight—communities from which governments or their critics can mobilize platoons of pundits to make prepackaged cases on a moment’s notice. Although there is nothing odd about experts playing prominent roles in debates, it is odd to keep score, to track expert performance against explicit benchmarks of accuracy and rigor. And that is what I have strug­ gled to do in twenty years of research of soliciting and scoring experts’ judgments on a wide range of issues. The key term is “struggled.” For, if it were easy to set standards for judging judgment that would be hon­ ored across the opinion spectrum and not glibly dismissed as another sneaky effort to seize the high ground for a favorite cause, someone would have patented the process long ago.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human and Ecological Risk Assessment\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human and Ecological Risk Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119483342.ch10\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human and Ecological Risk Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119483342.ch10","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

每天,无数的专家在令人眼花缭乱的论坛上提供无数的意见。愤世嫉俗者抱怨说,专家团体似乎已经准备好应对几乎任何政治焦点问题——政府或他们的批评者可以从这些团体中动员成排的专家,在接到通知后立即提出预先包装好的案例。虽然专家在辩论中扮演重要角色没什么奇怪的,但把专家的表现与明确的准确性和严谨性基准相对照,进行记分就有点奇怪了。这就是我在20年的研究中所努力做到的,我在广泛的问题上征求专家的意见并给他们打分。关键词是“挣扎”。因为,如果很容易就能制定出评判判断的标准,而这些标准会受到所有意见的尊重,而不会被轻易地斥为另一种为自己喜欢的事业抢占制高点的偷偷摸摸的努力,那么早就有人为这个过程申请了专利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Quantifying the Unquantifiable
Every day, countless experts offer innumerable opinions in a dizzying array of forums. Cynics groan that expert communities seem ready at hand for virtually any issue in the political spotlight—communities from which governments or their critics can mobilize platoons of pundits to make prepackaged cases on a moment’s notice. Although there is nothing odd about experts playing prominent roles in debates, it is odd to keep score, to track expert performance against explicit benchmarks of accuracy and rigor. And that is what I have strug­ gled to do in twenty years of research of soliciting and scoring experts’ judgments on a wide range of issues. The key term is “struggled.” For, if it were easy to set standards for judging judgment that would be hon­ ored across the opinion spectrum and not glibly dismissed as another sneaky effort to seize the high ground for a favorite cause, someone would have patented the process long ago.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
9.60
自引率
2.30%
发文量
68
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Human and Ecological Risk Assessment provides a resource for professionals researching and assessing environmental hazards to both humans and ecological systems. The editors expect papers published to be original, of sound science, purposeful for risk analysis (assessment, communication, management) and related areas, well written (in English), and a contribution to the scientific literature. The journal''s emphasis is on publication of papers that contribute to improvements in human and ecological health. The journal is an international, fully peer-reviewed publication that publishes eight issues annually. The journal''s scope includes scientific and technical information and critical analysis in the following areas: -Quantitative Risk Assessment- Comparative Risk Assessment- Integrated Human & Ecological Risk Assessment- Risk Assessment Applications to Human & Ecosystems Health- Exposure Assessment- Environmental Fate Assessment- Multi-Media Assessment- Hazard Assessment- Environmental Epidemiology- Statistical Models and Methods- Methods Development/Improvement- Toxicokinetics Modeling- Animal to Human Extrapolation- Risk Perception/Communication- Risk Management- Regulatory Issues
期刊最新文献
Estimating release of the antibiotic metronidazole into the environment from hospital effluents and assessment of the associated ecological risk: a case study in Isfahan, Iran (2023) Associations between perfluoroalkyl substance exposure and lean body mass in US adults: evidence from the NHANES 2015–2018 Exploring the pattern and influencing factors of ecosystem services under multiscale perspective: implications for ecosystem services management Implication of heavy metal(loid)s contamination for human health and preliminary application of water treatment in floodplain area along Mekong River, Lao PDR Soil quality guidelines for dioxins and furans in Canada: A review and international comparison
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1