Differentiating theory from evidence in determining confidence in an assessment finding |
| |
Authors: | Kristie L Ebi |
| |
Institution: | (1) Carnegie Institution for Science, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA |
| |
Abstract: | The Guidance Notes for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties describes a process for consistently evaluating and communicating levels of certainty in findings. The process begins with
an assessment of the scientific evidence and agreement supporting a finding, where evidence is defined as including mechanistic
understanding, theory, data, models, and expert judgment. The appropriateness of categorizing theory as one line of evidence
varies by scientific discipline; for the natural and social sciences, developing theory and collecting data are different
steps in the scientific method. Further, decision-makers often find it valuable for scientists to differentiate situations
where a theory is generally agreed but for which supporting data are limited, from situations where empirical data lack an
explanatory theory. The paper describes the approach used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) for assessing
the relative robustness of a theory separately from the strength and quality of its supporting evidence, and then developing
consensus statements of whether an agent is a human carcinogenic. Although the IARC and IPCC processes are very similar, the
IARC process also differs by combining theory, evidence, and agreement as equal partners in a limited set of standardized
categories of confidence. Incorporating aspects of the IARC approach into the IPCC guidance could improve the evaluation and
communication of theory, evidence, and agreement in future versions of the uncertainty guidance. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|