Abstract

Many philosophers and statisticians argue that risk assessors are morally obligated to evaluate the probabilities and consequences of methodological error, and to base their decisions of whether to adopt a given parameter value, model, or hypothesis on those considerations. This argument is couched within the rubric of null hypothesis testing, which I suggest is a poor descriptive and normative model for risk assessment. Risk regulation is not primarily concerned with evaluating the probability of data conditional upon the null hypothesis, but rather with measuring risks, estimating the consequences of available courses of action and inaction, formally characterising uncertainty, and deciding what to do based upon explicit values and decision criteria. In turn, I defend an ideal of value-neutrality, whereby the core inferential tasks of risk assessment – such as weighing evidence, estimating parameters, and model selection – should be guided by the aim of correspondence to reality. This is not to say that value-judgments be damned, but rather that they should be accounted for within a structured approach to decision analysis, rather than embedded within risk assessment in an informal manner.