algae/ukl/reinterpretation-NRC-table.html

Reinterpretation of the table in the NRC report

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.

link to my notes

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.