Talk:Zero-risk bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Absolute risk versus relative risk

I just noticed that the last sentence of the article doesn't properly illustrate the previous sentence:

It is related to the certainty effect, and it can also be explained in terms of a tendency to think in terms of proportions rather than differences. When a risk is reduced to zero, 100% of the risk is removed.

Wouldn't it be more illuminating to say, for example, if a 5% risk is reduced to zero, then the risk is reduced by 5% in absolute terms but by 100% in relative terms? Or somesuch? Neoprote 03:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

No. If a 5% risk is reduced to zero, then the risk is reduced by five percentage points, or one hundred per cent. — Chameleon 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad example

This article mistakes group decisions for individual decisions, and then attributes an individual bias to the group decision. In fact, the group decision is probably based on other factors. For example, political bodies like Congress make decisions for a variety of reasons as different as the reasons held by dozens of individual members. Attributing a personal bias to this group decision is at best difficult, and is probably impossible. And even if you do attribute a single motive to the group, it might not be the one this author chooses. For example, in the 1950s Congress didn't have the same scientific knowledge we have today, and might not have understood the difference between "zero" and "reasonable" risk in additives. Or they might have decided that the transaction costs of determining "reasonable" risk were so high that an absolute ban was more efficient. In any event, someone who wants to use this example needs to do a lot more research to demonstrate why Congress acted as it did. Otherwise, this example feels like confirmation bias (choosing and interpreting an example because it confirms one's prior beliefs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodneylbrownjr (talk • contribs) 03:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)