Cited by 43Philosophy and History of SciencePhilosophy, Science, and HistoryEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

Exploring Inductive Risk

Elliott, Kevin C., Richards, Ted·2017·Oxford Scholarship Online

Abstract

The introductory chapter provides an overview of the book Exploring Inductive Risk . It introduces the concept of inductive risk, briefly traces the history of the argument from inductive risk, and sets out the book’s chapters in terms of four themes. The first part, “Weighing Inductive Risk,” illustrates the concept of inductive risk and the judgments involved in weighing different sorts of errors. The chapters in the second part, “Evading Inductive Risk,” examine proposals by critics who argue that the value judgments associated with inductive risk should be made by citizens and policymakers, not by scientists. The third section, “The Breadth of Inductive Risk,” illustrates the wide variety of decision points throughout scientific practice where considerations of inductive risk are relevant. The book’s fourth section, “Exploring the Limits of Inductive Risk,” considers whether it still makes sense to apply the label of inductive risk to such a broad array of phenomena.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190467715.003.0001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Whether current chatbots are conscious is ultimately an empirical question, and empirical testing is probabilistic, involving inductive risk, i.e., the possibility of false positives or false negatives given the available evidence.

    “whether current chatbots are conscious is ultimately an empirical question, and empirical testing is probabilistic, involving”

    From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Elliot & Richards, 2017

  • Value judgments are required to set evidential thresholds, and if the agent is transparent about their judgment, consistently applies their threshold as new data emerges, and stays open to revising their stance, the resulting value-laden belief is unproblematic.

    “Many philosophers of science hold that these value judgments are required to set evidential thresholds and if the agent is transparent about their judgment, consistently applies their threshold as new data emerges, and stays open to revising their stance, the resulting value-laden belief is unproblematic (e.g., Longino, 2002;Elliot & Richards, 2017).”

    From Are Attributions of Consciousness to AI Chatbots Epistemically Innocent? (2026) · cites this paper as Elliot & Richards, 2017

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elliott, K. C., & Richards, T.
Venue
Oxford Scholarship Online
Published
2017-06-22
OpenAlex
W4241031802
Cited by
43
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
2.06
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
inductive risk, value judgments in science, weighing error, scientific decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review