Varieties of Risk

The notion of risk plays a central role in economics, finance, health, psychology, law and elsewhere-and is prevalent in managing challenges and resources in day-to-day life. Almost all of the existing literature on risk takes it for granted that there is one and only one legitimate notion of risk: the probabilistic notion on which the risk of an event or state of affairs is equated with its probability. The primary aim of this research project is to challenge this monist view of risk and provide a philosophical framework for a pluralist perspective, on which there are multiple, equally legitimate, notions of risk. This new framework will then be applied to crucial questions about risk that arise in psychology, criminal law, outdoor sports, and risk management.

Philosophy
We develop risk pluralism by drawing on other long-standing debates about pluralism in philosophy, for example, pluralism about truth, value, norms, or logical consequence. We argue that risk pluralism offers not merely a descriptively adequate theory of risk judgments, but also that it is the correct normative theory. Our defence of risk pluralism will tie in with current debates about philosophical methodology and epistemic rationality.

Psychology
It is widely acknowledged that risk judgments that people are inclined to make don't always align with what the probabilistic account would predict to be correct. In research dating back to at least the 1970s psychologists have identified a range of ways in which people's intuitive judgments systematically deviate from the predictions of the probabilistic account. These results have been taken to reveal heuristics and biases which guide our judgments. A pluralist account of risk opens up a new way of interpreting these findings: risk judgments which diverge from the probabilistic account could be reconceived as tracking non-probabilistic notions of risk.

Criminal Law
Many of the rules of criminal procedure are designed to minimise the risk of convicting an innocent person. In particular, the high standard of proof for criminal trials-beyond reasonable doubt-is designed to ensure that the risk of mistaken convictions is very low. And yet, as a number of theorists have observed, many features of the criminal trial process are difficult to square with a probabilistic account of risk. We argue that introducing certain non-probabilistic notions of risk enables us to better account for the realities of legal practice. We will also investigate other ways in which risk figures in criminal trials, e.g. in pre-trial decision about bail or detention, definitions of recklessness, or decisions about parole.

Outdoor sport
Outdoor sports and so-called "extreme" sports, such as mountaineering, base-jumping, or off-piste skiing, involve an increased fatality rate which also affects the most competent practitioners in these activities. In recent studies, numerous "heuristics traps" and biases have been identified that can lead practitioners to misjudge the dangers involved, while the visceral nature of an accident can, in turn, lead non-practitioners to overestimate the dangers of such activities. A pluralist account of risk can help to explain such widespread disagreement in risk judgments by showing that some such judgments are responding to a non-probabilistic notion of risk.

Risk Management
The widespread practice of de minimis risk management involves disregarding certain low risk possibilities, while subjecting moderate and high-risk possibilities to a comprehensive risk analysis. If risk is understood in probabilistic terms, this practice cannot be justified-and it has been criticised on precisely these grounds. We will determine whether the practice may be legitimate relative to a non-probabilistic notion of risk.

The notion of risk plays a role not only in numerous academic disciplines but affects and underlies human decision-making quite generally. As such, the identification of different concepts of risk and how these distinct notions can affect our decisions and our reasoning--the core aim of our research proposal--has significant potential for distinctive impact beyond academia. We plan to use the expertise and interests of the PI and the Co-I to engage in two well-defined areas of impact, directly related to our research questions.

Risk and outdoor sports decision-making: First, we will work directly with outdoor educators and practitioners to understand better the relevant risk judgments, heuristics and biases that are distinctive to competent outdoor decision-making. Naturally, this will create a feedback loop from impact back to research, since understanding the diversity of competent risk-judgments and identifying potential sources of disagreement of such judgments provides a basis for risk pluralism. Secondly, having engaged with professionals and educators, we will collaborate with them on how these insights can be translated into an outdoor education curriculum so to educate newcomers to outdoor decision-making. We will engage with stakeholders at the Scottish National Outdoor Training Centre (Glenmore Lodge) and with researchers from the Scottish Avalanche Information Service.

Risk and legal decision-making: The research conducted in this project directly bears upon a number of issues about criminal procedure including two that are of current interest to policy makers in Scotland: (I) The use of biometric evidence in criminal prosecution and (II) the corroboration rule. We will pursue two distinct avenues for bringing the results of this research to the attention of policy makers: through the Social Sciences Cross-Party Group and through the Scottish Institute for Policing Research. The Social Sciences Cross Party Group provides a forum for discussing research in the social sciences relevant to current policy issues in Scotland, involving academics, MSPs, and other Social Science and Policy stakeholders. Through this group, the Co-I has already flagged his research with the Police Division of Scottish Government. The Scottish Institute for Policing Research is a collaboration between 14 Scottish Universities and the Police Service of Scotland and includes a research network, Evidence and Investigation, exploring policies for using forensic evidence in criminal investigation and, in particular, the use of biometric databases.

While our plans for impact will target, in the first instance, specific interest groups, we will also communicate the outcomes of our research to a wider audience. We have a budget to produce short videos that summarise and explain the results of our research. The videos will be shared on our website and through social media channels. Both PI and Co-I will draw upon extensive experience engaging in knowledge exchange: the PI co-produced and narrated a short movie that touched on philosophical issues in extreme sports, called Comfort Zones, which was screened at Mountain Film Festivals (Dundee, Braemar, Sheffield) and discussed in newspapers (The Scotsman and The Courier). The Co-I has a track record of high-profile public philosophy and was awarded the inaugural Sanders Prize for Public Philosophy for a paper on probability and surprise that is closely linked to the themes of this project.