National_Research_Council (2004). Endangered and threatened fishes in the Klamath River Basin: causes of decline and strategies for recovery. Washington, DC, National Academy of Sciences.
The following table was included in this report on UKL
pg 35 - Table 1-2 categories used by the committee
| basis of proposed action | Scientific support |
Possibly correct? |
potential to be incorrect |
| intuition, | none | yes | high |
| professional judgement inconsistent with evidence | none | unlikely | high |
| professional judgement with evidence absent | weak | yes | moderately high |
| prof judgement with supporting evidence | moderate | yes | moderate |
| hypothesis tested by one line of evidence | strong | yes | low |
| hypoth tested by multiple lines of evidence | strong | yes | low |
the committee found the greatest differences in level 2 in which professional judgement was at odds with "scientific valid, relevant evidence"
Based on the analysis of decisions under uncertainty - specifically the work of Fox and Tversky 2000
Fox, C. R., and Amos Tversky (2000). Ambiguity Aversion and Comparitive Ignorance. Choice, Values, and Frames. D. Kahneman, and Amos Tversky. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press: 528 - 542.
People would much rather accept an uncertainty or unquantified risk in an area in which they are familiar, than take a known risk in an area in which they are not comfortable. In this case, it means that lake professionals would rather trust their intuition (feeling) in their speciality (fish, etc) rather than deal with the amorphous information that is available through scientific channels.