Change search
Refine search result
2345678 201 - 250 of 407
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 201.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Privacy, Discrimination, and Inequality in the Workplace2005In: The Ethics of Workplace Privacy / [ed] Sven Ove Hansson and Elin Palm, Brussels: Peter Lang , 2005, p. 119-135Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 202.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy.
    Promoting inherent safety2010In: Process Safety and Environmental Protection, ISSN 0957-5820, E-ISSN 1744-3598, Vol. 88, no 3, p. 168-172Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    By inherent safety is meant that a hazard is eliminated rather than being managed by various add-on equipment and procedures. Practices of inherent safety have been developed in the chemical industry, and include for instance the substitution of hazardous substances by less hazardous ones. Inherently safer design strives to eliminate the possibility of major adverse events even when the probabilities of these events are small or cannot be meaningfully estimated. Considerations of security can be more easily incorporated into this approach than into most other branches of risk and safety analysis. Therefore, inherent safety has a great potential as a meeting-ground for the much-needed coordination of safety and security work. Its philosophical underpinnings are outlined, and proposals are made for more efficient promotion of its principles. (C) 2010 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

  • 203.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Radiation Protection: Sorting Out the Arguments2011In: Philosophy and Technology, ISSN 2210-5433, Vol. 24, no 3, p. 363-368Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    This is a response to an article by Wade Allison in which he argues that we should accept drastically higher doses of ionizing radiation than what we currently do (Philosophy and Technology 24:193–195, 2011). He employs four arguments in defence of his position: comparisons with background radiation, the positive experiences of radiotherapy, the presence of biological defence mechanisms against radiation, and a concession by Swedish authorities that their approach to reindeer meat after the Chernobyl fallout was unnecessarily strict. It is shown that each of the four arguments is fallacious. In conclusion, the traditional weighing of risks against benefits in radiation protection is defended.

  • 204.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, Superseded Departments, History of Science and Technology.
    Rapporter från religionens bakgata2004In: Folkvett, ISSN 0283-0795, no 2Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 205.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Reconstruction of Contraction Operators2016In: Erkenntnis, ISSN 0165-0106, E-ISSN 1572-8420, Vol. 81, no 1, p. 185-199Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    An operator of belief change is reconstructible as another such operator if and only if any outcome that can be obtained with the former can also be obtained with the latter (not necessarily using the same input). Two operators are mutually reconstructible if they generate exactly the same set of outcomes. The relations of recon-structibility among fifteen operators of contraction, including the common AGM contraction operators, are completely characterized. Furthermore, the additional such relations are characterized that arise if all belief sets are required to be finite-based or if the language is finite. These results are significant for the choice of a formal model to represent how real-world agents change their beliefs. In particular, if two contraction operators are mutually reconstructible, then that limits the types of considerations that can legitimately be invoked in favour of one over the other.

  • 206.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy.
    Regulating BFRs - From science to policy2008In: Chemosphere, ISSN 0045-6535, E-ISSN 1879-1298, Vol. 73, no 2, p. 144-147Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    An adequate distribution of responsibilities between scientists and policy-makers requires that a distinction be made between theoretical rationality (what to believe) and practical rationality (what to do). In chemical risk management, it is often necessary to base decisions on indications of risk that do not amount to full scientific proof. Guidelines are offered for how this can be done without infringing upon the integrity of science. Furhtermore, it is shown that the application of standard decision theory to chemical risks yields conclusions very much in agreement with the precautionary principle.

  • 207.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Relations of epistemic proximity for belief change2014In: Artificial Intelligence, ISSN 0004-3702, E-ISSN 1872-7921, Vol. 217, p. 76-91Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Relations of epistemic proximity are closely related to relations of epistemic entrenchment, but contrary to the latter they do not refer to sentences but to belief patterns that are expressed with a metalinguistic belief predicate B. Hence -Bp > B-q means that disbelief in p is more close at hand (obtainable with less far-reaching changes in belief) than belief in not-q. The logic of epistemic proximity is investigated, and it is used to construct a uniform operation of belief change that has the standard operations as special cases, specified with success conditions such as Bp for revision and {-Bp(1),...,-Bp(n)} for multiple contraction. Standard entrenchment relations are obtained by defining p to be less entrenched than q if and only if -Bp > -Bq.

  • 208.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Repertoire Contraction2013In: Journal of Logic, Language and Information, ISSN 0925-8531, E-ISSN 1572-9583, Vol. 22, no 1, p. 1-21Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The basic assumption of repertoire contraction is that only some of the logically closed subsets of the original belief set are viable as contraction outcomes. Contraction takes the form of choosing directly among these viable outcomes, rather than among cognitively more far-fetched objects such as possible worlds or maximal consistent subsets of the original belief set. In this first investigation of repertoire contraction, postulates for various variants of the operation are introduced. Necessary and sufficient conditions are given for when repertoire contraction coincides with AGM contraction or with operations generated by AGM-style contraction on a belief base. A close connection is shown to hold between repertoire contraction and specified meet contraction.

  • 209.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Replacement in Belief Revision2006In: Modality Matters: Twenty-Five Essays in Honour of Krister Segerberg / [ed] Henrik Lagerlund, Sten Lindström and Rysiek Sliwinski, Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet , 2006Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 210.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology.
    Replacement-A Sheffer Stroke for Belief Change2009In: Journal of Philosophical Logic, ISSN 0022-3611, E-ISSN 1573-0433, Vol. 38, no 2, p. 127-149Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    By replacement is meant an operation that replaces one sentence by another in a belief set. Replacement can be used as a kind of Sheffer stroke for belief change, since contraction, revision, and expansion can all be defined in terms of it. Replacement can also be defined either in terms of contraction or in terms of revision. Close connections are shown to hold between axioms for replacement and axioms for contraction and revision. Partial meet replacement is axiomatically characterized. It is shown that this operation can have outcomes that are not obtainable through either partial meet contraction or partial meet revision.

  • 211.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, Superseded Departments, History of Science and Technology.
    Replacing the no-effect level (NOEL) with bounded effect levels (OBEL and LEBEL)2002In: Statistics in Medicine, ISSN 0277-6715, E-ISSN 1097-0258, Vol. 21, no 20, p. 3071-3078Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    From experiments or epidemiological studies designed to search for a particular toxic effect, it is in general possible to determine an upper bound for that effect. This observed bounded effect level (OBEL) is defined for both positive and negative experiments. It is non-zero even for negative experiments, and it is inversely related to the size of the exposed group. The OBEL can be used to determine the linearly extrapolated bounded effect level (LEBEL) for various effect doses. Contrary to no-observed-effect' levels (NOELs), LEBEL values are designed to protect against type 11 (false negative) errors. It is proposed that LEBEL values replace NOELs as a tool for decision-making.

  • 212.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Reply to the comment from C Fiori and D Martinez on my article 'Homoeopathy and consumers' right to know'2013In: Journal of Internal Medicine, ISSN 0954-6820, E-ISSN 1365-2796, Vol. 274, no 5, p. 495-495Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 213.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Representing supererogation2015In: Journal of logic and computation (Print), ISSN 0955-792X, E-ISSN 1465-363X, Vol. 25, no 2, p. 443-451Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A new formal representation of supererogation is presented. Its basic idea is that a supererogatory action is an optional action that is a better variant of another, obligatory action. Therefore, in addition to the common resources of deontic language, a preference relation over actions is needed to express this account of supererogation.

  • 214.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Response to questions on hormesis and ethics2008In: Belle Newsletter (Biological Effects of Low Level Exposures), ISSN 1092-4736, Vol. 14, no 3, p. 7-Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 215.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Retoriskt självbiografisk arkeologi2006In: Folkvett: organ för Vetenskap och folkbildning, ISSN 0283-0795, no 2Article, book review (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    När man öppnar en avhandling i arkeologi förväntar man sig förmodligen att bli informerad om bevarade spår från gångna tider. Det här är en helt annan slags avhandling. Den handlar om arkeologiämnets uppgifter och möjligheter i samtiden. Reflektioner om detta är förstås mycket välkomna. En avhandling med ett sådant tema skulle kunna belysa viktiga metodfrågor inom arkeologin och dess relation till andra historiska vetenskaper. Tyvärr uppfyller dock denna avhandling inte några sådana förväntningar. Redan själva ansatsen är allt annat än lovande. Författaren beskriver inledningsvis sin avhandling som "en retoriskt självbiografisk text" och framhåller: "Texten talar inte endast om mig, utan framför allt till mig, vilket utgör en hermeneutisk position där skrivandet av texten inte blir traditionellt hypotesprövande utan en form av improvisation där mottagandet (som även är mitt eget) inte är självklart eller förutbestämt." Att skriva för sig själv duger inte i forskningssammanhang. Forskning handlar om att producera allmängiltig kunskap. Detta är ett grundläggande krav som är gemensamt för alla forskningstraditioner, även de hermeneutiska. Man kan inte friskriva sig från detta genom att hänföra sin forskning till en särskild tradition. Författaren har läst en samling kritiska texter om arkeologin, särskilt inom den s.k. postprocessuella traditionen. Avhandlingen består av referat och reflektioner kring dessa texter. Den är dock så otydligt skriven att det på många ställen är svårt att veta om författaren "bara" refererar en annan text, om han refererar den instämmande, eller ger uttryck för helt egna uppfattningar. Dessutom innehåller avhandlingen många formuleringar som är mycket svårtolkade även i andra avseenden. Några exempel följer. Arkeologin ska "undvika att bygga på ett möte med ett förflutet som a priori". Denna formulering verkar bygga på ett missförstånd om vad "a priori" betyder. Det är en filosofisk fackterm som något förenklat kan översättas som "oberoende av erfarenhet". De traditionella arkeologer som författaren argumenterar mot har verkligen inte hävdat att arkeologisk kunskap är oberoende av (empirisk) erfarenhet. Att döma av sammanhanget tror författaren att a priori betyder "förutbestämt" eller något liknande. "... så söker jag i (den postprocessuella) arkeologin ett tecken på metafysisk tillhörighet". Vad är metafysisk tillhörighet? Ordet metafysisk verkar här användas som ett allmänt förstärkningsord, inte i sin gängse filosofiska bemärkelse. Vi ska enligt författaren "försöka acceptera paradoxen att det förflutna existerar samtidigt med samtiden". Detta låter måhända djupsinnigt vid första läsningen. Men läs då noggrannare. Vilken innebörd måste vi ge ordet "existera" för att kunna hävda att det förflutna existerar samtidigt med samtiden? Vidare, vilken innebörd måste vi ge ordet "samtidigt" för att detta påstående ska kunna stämma överens? Vi måste uppenbarligen definiera begreppen tämligen okonventionellt för att få det hela att gå ihop. Nästa fråga som då inställer sig är: vad, om något, kan vi vinna genom en sådan omdefiniering? Har vi vunnit några nya insikter och i så fall vilka? "Historien är alltid mer verklig än det den talar om." Vad betyder detta? I vilken betydelse av ordet "verklig" kan en skildring vara mer verklig än det som den skildrar? "Strävan mot en mer modern arkeologi borde därför leda till att ämnet förångas." Ett kemiskt ämne kan förångas, men vad betyder det att ett akademiskt ämne förångas? Författaren eftersträvar "en arkeologi som ger sig hän åt en pluralitet och som skapar en grönskande dynamik och diskussion, utan att omfamnas av en skrikig relativism." Vad betyder det att relativism är skrikig? Är en oskrikig relativism acceptabel, och hur skiljer man dem åt? Handlar förresten inte skrikighet om hur en ståndpunkt presenteras snarare än om dess innehåll? "Den vetenskapliga arkeologin tjänar på så vis som en auktoritet som kan binda nuet." Vad menas med att binda nuet? "Är vi arkeologer utrustade, eller villiga, att upplösa den moderna dikotomin mellan subjekt och objekt?" Hur gör man när man upplöser uppdelningen mellan subjekt och objekt, om subjektet (forskaren) föddes några tusen år efter att objektet (t.ex. en gravsatt bronsålderskvinna) dog? Det är lätt att ge ett djupsinnigt intryck med hjälp av ord som flertalet läsare känner igen men inte behärskar tillräckligt väl för att kunna bedöma hur de används. Denna avhandling kan, sorgligt nog, användas som en exempelsamling på sådan skenbar djupsinnighet. Ur akademisk synvinkel måste detta misslyckande framför allt vara ett resultat av bristfällig handledning. Mot bakgrund av avhandlingens omfattande referenser till filosofisk litteratur och terminologi borde det ha varit en självklarhet att förse doktoranden med en handledare från filosofiämnet. Trots alla otydligheter har avhandlingen ett omisskännligt ideologiskt budskap. Författaren vill ge upp idén att arkeologin kan ge tydliga besked om hur det förflutna var. "Den sanning vi uttalar är beroende av vår position i tiden och rummet, och kan uppfattas som sann eller riktig endast utifrån vår kulturella, ideologiska och sociala kontext." Vad finns det då att sätta i stället? Jo, naturligtvis att anpassa historiebilden efter vad som passar våra nuvarande syften. I boken framhålls starkt att arkeologin har till uppgift att göra just detta, att skapa berättelser som passar nutiden. Författaren uttrycker "en vilja att kunna hierarkisera representationer av det förflutna, där historier som är relevanta för samtiden är ?riktigare? eller ?sannare? än andra." Han säger rentav att "vi ska ta vårt ansvar och aktivt skapa en historia för samtiden". Då är vi tillbaka i gångna tiders historieskrivning. Så länge det funnits ett skriftspråk har kungasmickrare och andra opportunister sysslat med att "aktivt skapa en historia för samtiden". Det krävdes på sin tid ett stort arbete och en hård intellektuell självdisciplin för att ersätta den traditionen med en akademisk historievetenskap som gör sitt yttersta för att så långt möjligt utröna hur det verkligen var, och som samtidigt tydligt klargör den historiska kunskapens gränser. I Sverige genomfördes detta lyft till stor del under 1900-talets första årtionden. Man måste vara mycket historielös för att överge dessa landvinningar i tron att man håller på att utveckla något slags nyare och bättre arkeologi och historievetenskap, när man i själva verket bara återgår till den slappare hållning till källor och spår som rådde före den moderna historievetenskapens framväxt. Historielösheten kan uppenbarligen vara ett problem till och med på de institutioner som har till uppgift att utforska det förflutna.

  • 216.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Reversing ‘research exceptionalism’2010In: American Journal of Bioethics, ISSN 1526-5161, E-ISSN 1536-0075, Vol. 10, no 8, p. 66-67Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 217.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Review of Adam Olszewski, Jan Wolenski, Robert Janusz. (eds.): Church’s Thesis after 70 years2008In: Erkenntnis, ISSN 0165-0106, E-ISSN 1572-8420, Vol. 69, no 3, p. 421-425Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 218.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Review of Brian Leiter (ed.), The Future for Philosophy2006In: Disputatio, ISSN 0873-626X, E-ISSN 2182-2875, Vol. 1, no 20, p. 346-348Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 219.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, Superseded Departments, History of Science and Technology.
    Review of Hans Rott, Change, choice and inference: A study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning2004In: Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, ISSN 0039-3215, E-ISSN 1572-8730, Vol. 77, p. 145-147Article, review/survey (Refereed)
  • 220.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Review of Jaakko Hintikka, Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning2010In: History and Philosophy of Logic, ISSN 0144-5340, E-ISSN 1464-5149, Vol. 31, p. 101-103Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 221.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Risk2011In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab , 2011Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 222.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Risk2010In: The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity / [ed] Robert Frodeman, Julie Thompson Klein and Carl Mitcham, Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 536-545Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 223.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Risk Analysis2009In: A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology / [ed] Vincent F Hendricks; Jan Kyrre Berg Olsen; Stig Andur Pedersen, Wiley-Blackwell, 2009, p. 500-501Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 224.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Risk and ethics: three approaches2008In: Risk: Philosophical Perspectives / [ed] Tim Lewens, Routledge, 2008, p. 21-35Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 225.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Risk and Safety from the Viewpoint of Philospohy of Technology2011In: Journal of Northeastern University, ISSN 1008-3758Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 226.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Risk and Safety in Technology2009In: Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, Volume 9: Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences / [ed] Anthonie Meijers, Elsevier, 2009, p. 1069-1102Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 227.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Risk: Nuclear energy and the ethics of radiation protection2015In: The Ethics of Nuclear Energy: Risk, Justice, and Democracy in the Post-Fukushima Era, Cambridge University Press, 2015, p. 15-34Chapter in book (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    Do we have an ethics of nuclear energy? The answer is, unfortunately: “It depends.” To be somewhat more precise it depends on what we mean by having an ethics of a social sector or activity. In one sense, we have an ethics of X if there are important ethical issues concerning X. In that sense, this volume as a whole bears witness to the existence of an ethics of nuclear energy. In another sense, we have an ethics of X if there is already a reasonably well-developed and focused discourse on ethical issues concerning X. In this latter sense, we do not yet have an ethics of nuclear energy (but we may have so in the future, something this volume can possibly contribute to). The distinction between these two senses of “an ethics of” is important since it helps clarifying the rather fragmented nature of ethical deliberations and discussions in our societies. On the one hand we have “fundamental” ethics, which dominates in philosophy departments. It is concerned with general, often rather abstract, problems such as the nature and sources of ethics, the structure of ethical statements, and whether such statements can be true or false in the same sense as factual statements. Many of these issues were discussed already by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. On the other hand, we have disciplines of area-specific ethics, such as medical ethics, research ethics, engineering ethics, business ethics, and environmental ethics. (I use the term “area-specific ethics” rather than the more common “applied ethics” that gives the misleading impression that work in these areas consists in applying theories from fundamental ethics, cf. Hansson [2003b].) With the exception of medical ethics, these subdisciplines are relatively new. They cover only a very small part of the human activities in which ethical issues arise. Some of the lacunae are notable. For instance, we do not have a specialized ethical discourse on traffic safety although about 1.2 million people per year are killed in road traffic accidents and another 20–50 million are injured (World Health Organization 2013). Neither do we have a specialized ethical discussion on welfare provision, insurance, building and architecture, or foreign aid, to mention just a few examples.

  • 228.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy.
    Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values2010In: Journal of Risk Research, ISSN 1366-9877, E-ISSN 1466-4461, Vol. 13, no 2, p. 231-238Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Perhaps the most fundamental divide in risk research is that between proponents of two contradictory concepts of risk. Some take risk as objectively given and determined by physical facts, whereas others see risk as a social construction that is independent of physical facts. These two views are scrutinized, and it is concluded that neither is tenable. Risk is both fact-laden and value-laden, and it contains both objective and subjective components. It is argued that both the objectivist and the subjectivist view of risk are failed attempts to rid a complex concept of much of its complexity. The real challenge is to identify the various types of factual and valuational components inherent in statements about risk and to understand how they are combined. The two oversimplifications both stand in the way of a more sophisticated analysis of risk.

  • 229.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy. Royal Swedish Acad Engn Sci, Stockholm, Sweden.;Soc Philosophy & Technol, Stockholm, Sweden..
    Risk, Science and Policy: A Treacherous Triangle2018In: Ethical Perspectives, ISSN 1370-0049, E-ISSN 1783-1431, Vol. 25, no 3, p. 391-418Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Decisions on risk are often frustrated by conflicts and uncertainties at the science-policy interface. This article shows that there is considerable scope for improving the decision-making process and in particular its use of science. Philosophical tools and distinctions can have a key role in eliminating or coming to grips with risk-related uncertainties. Many of the so-called scientific controversies are in fact not conflicts within science, but between science and science denial or other forms of pseudoscience. In these cases, the alleged uncertainties can be dissolved by throwing out pseudoscientific claims and fabricated controversies. A significant part of the remaining uncertainty is not decision-relevant although it seems to be so. Two simple symmetry tests are introduced for investigating whether an uncertainty is specific enough to be more troublesome for the option it has been associated with than for other options in the decision. Finally, decision theory and ethics provide means for dealing with the remaining decision-relevant scientific uncertainties. One of the ethical tools that can be used for this purpose is hypothetical retrospection. This method consists in systematically deliberating on how we will in the future evaluate the decisions that we make today, under various assumptions about other potential future developments. The purpose of this process is to come as close as possible to the ideal of making a decision that will be ethically defensible whatever happens.

  • 230.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Risker och ansvari hälso- och sjukvården2007In: I rättvisans namn: Ansvar, skuld och säkerhet i vården / [ed] Synnöve Ödegård, Stockholm: Liber, 2007Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 231.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History.
    Risk-knowledge, ignorance, and values combined2016In: Perspectives on Ignorance from Moral and Social Philosophy, Taylor and Francis , 2016, p. 186-204Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 232.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, Superseded Departments, Infrastructure.
    Rudolf Steiners raslära2004In: Folkvett, ISSN 0283-0795, Vol. 3Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 233.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Rättframt om Sai Baba2006In: Folkvett : organ för Vetenskap och folkbildning, ISSN 0283-0795, no 1Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 234.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Safe Design2006In: Techne, Vol. 10, no 1, p. 64-70Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Safety is an essential ethical requirement in engineering design. Strategies for safe design are used not only to reduce estimated probabilities of injuries but also to cope with hazards and eventualities that cannot be assigned meaningful probabilities. The notion of safe design has important ethical dimensions, such as that of determining the responsibility that a designer has for future uses (and misuses) of the designed object.

  • 235.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Safety Factors and Exposure Limits2010In: Risks in Technological Systems / [ed] Göran Grimvall, Åke J Holmgren, Per Jacobsson and Torbjörn Thedéen, Springer, 2010, p. 113-122Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 236.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Safety is an inherently inconsistent concept2012In: Safety Science, ISSN 0925-7535, E-ISSN 1879-1042, Vol. 50, no 7, p. 1522-1527Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Some basic principles for philosophical definition work are introduced and then applied to safety and related concepts. Definitions are provided first for comparative safety concepts such as " safer than" and then for the monadic " safe" . It is shown that " safe" is an inherently inconsistent concept, i.e. it cannot be restored to consistency without giving up what we perceive as some of its central elements. The reason for this is that both absolute and relative conceptions of safety are entrenched in common usage of the term. In order to avoid the inconsistency a strategy of terminological ramification is proposed: We should distinguish between the two concepts " reasonably safe" and " absolutely safe" . Any usage of " safe" or " safety" . simpliciter should be seen as an abbreviated reference to one of these two closely related, remarkably confusable, but still unmergable concepts.

  • 237.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Science and Pseudo-Science2008In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab , 2008Chapter in book (Refereed)
  • 238.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Science and Technology: What They Are and Why Their Relation Matters2015In: ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN SCIENCE: PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES, SPRINGER-VERLAG BERLIN , 2015, Vol. 18, p. 11-23Chapter in book (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The relationship(s) between science and technology can be conceived in different ways depending on how each of the two concepts is defined. This chapter traces them both back to the medieval tradition of knowledge classification and its notions of science and mechanical arts. Science can be defined either in the limited sense of the English language or in a broader sense that includes the humanities. It is argued that the latter approach provides a more adequate delimitation from an epistemological point of view. The word "technology" can refer either to knowledge about practical activities with tools and machines (a common sense in German and many other languages) or to these activities, tools, and machines themselves (the common sense of the word in English). Based on conceptual clarifications of the two concepts, four classes of philosophically interesting questions about science-technology relationships are outlined: (1) the relation between science in general and technological science, (2) the role of science in technological practice, (3) the role of technological practice in science, and (4) the relationship between science and the Aristotelian notion of productive arts (that is more general than the notion of technological practice).

  • 239.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Science denial as a form of pseudoscience2017In: Studies in history and philosophy of science, ISSN 0039-3681, E-ISSN 1879-2510, Vol. 63, p. 39-47Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Science denialism poses a serious threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of human civilization. Although it has recently been rather extensively discussed, this discussion has rarely been connected to the extensive literature on pseudoscience and the science-pseudoscience demarcation. This contribution argues that science denialism should be seen as one of the two major forms of pseudoscience, alongside of pseudotheory promotion. A detailed comparison is made between three prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science denialism. Several characteristics are identified that distinguish science denialism from other forms of pseudoscience, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake controversies, the extraordinary male dominance among its activists, and its strong connection with various forms of right-wing politics. It is argued that the scientific response to science denialism has to be conceived with these characteristics in mind. In particular, it is important to expose the fabricated fake controversies for what they are and to reveal how science denialists consistently use deviant criteria of assent to distort the scientific process.

  • 240.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Scopes, Options, and Horizons - Key Issues in Decision Structuring2018In: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, ISSN 1386-2820, E-ISSN 1572-8447, Vol. 21, no 2, p. 259-273Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Real-life decision-making often begins with a disorderly decision problem that has to be clarified and systematized before a decision can be made. This is the process of decision structuring that has largely been ignored both in decision theory and applied decision analysis. In this contribution, ten major components of decision structuring are identified, namely the determination of its scope (the issues to be covered by the decision), subdivision (if and in that case how the decision will divided into separate parts), agency (who will make the decision), timing, options, control ascriptions, framing, horizon (the consequences and other aspects of outcomes that will be taken into account), criteria (of success) and (provisions for) restructuring. Four of these components, namely the scope, subdivision, options, and horizon of a decision, are subjected to a more detailed analysis.

  • 241.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, Superseded Departments, Infrastructure.
    Semantics for more plausible deontic logics2004In: Journal of Applied Logic, ISSN 1570-8683, E-ISSN 1570-8691, Vol. 2, p. 3-18Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    In order to avoid the paradoxes of standard deontic logic, we have to give up the semantic construction that identifies obligatory status with presence in all elements of a subset of the set of possible worlds. It is proposed that deontic logic should instead be based on a preference relation, according to the principle that whatever is better than something permitted is itself permitted. Close connections hold between the logical properties of a preference relation and those of the deontic logics that are derived from it in this way. The paradoxes of SDL can be avoided with this construction, but it is still an open question what type of preference relation is best suited to be used as a basis for deontic logic.

  • 242.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, Superseded Departments, History of Science and Technology.
    Seriös bluffbok2004In: Folkvett : organ för Vetenskap och folkbildning, ISSN 0283-0795, no 2Article, book review (Other academic)
  • 243.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Seven Myths of Risk2005In: Risk Management: An International Journal, ISSN 1460-3799, E-ISSN 1743-4637, Vol. 7, no 2, p. 7-17Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    Communication between experts and the public has turned out to be unusually difficult in the field of risk research. These difficulties are closely connected to a series of recalcitrant misconceptions of risk and its social preconditions. In this paper, seven of the most pernicious myths of risk are exposed, namely: first, that 'risk' must have a single, well-defined meaning; second, that the severity of risks should be judged according to probability-weighted averages of the severity of their outcomes; third, that decisions on risk should be made by weighing total risks against total benefits; fourth, that decisions on risk should be taken by experts rather than by laymen; fifth, that risk-reducing measures in all sectors of society should be decided according to the same standards; sixth, that risk assessments should be based only on well-established scientific facts; and seventh, that if there is a serious risk, then scientists will find it if they look for it.

  • 244.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Seventy-Five Years of Theoria2009In: Theoria, ISSN 0040-5825, E-ISSN 1755-2567, Vol. 75, no 1, p. 1-Article in journal (Refereed)
  • 245.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Sherlock Holmes och vetenskapen2010In: Folkvett : organ för Vetenskap och folkbildning, ISSN 0283-0795Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 246.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology.
    Should we protect the most sensitive people?2009In: Journal of Radiological Protection, ISSN 0952-4746, E-ISSN 1361-6498, Vol. 29, no 2, p. 211-218Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    The recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) are based on a population average, rather than on the available data for subpopulations. From an ethical point of view, this approach is far from unproblematic. Strong reasons can be given in support of a right for each radiation-exposed person to have the best possible information about the risk to himself or herself, which is often group-specific information. Risk exposures have to be defensible from the perspective of each identifiable group for which a specific risk assessment can be made. Exposing a person to a high risk cannot be justified by pointing out that the risk to an average person would have been much lower. There are two major ways to protect a sensitive group: special standards for the group (differentiated protection) and general standards that are strict enough to protect its members (unified protection). Some major factors that are relevant for the choice between these two protective strategies are identified.

  • 247.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Signifikansmissbruket i pseudovetenskapen2010In: Qvintensen / Statistiska föreningen och Svenska statistikersamfundet, ISSN 2000-1819, no 3Article in journal (Other academic)
  • 248.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
    Skilj mellan terapi och ideologi2006In: Tvärsnitt, ISSN 0348-7997, no 3Article in journal (Other (popular science, discussion, etc.))
  • 249.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy.
    Social decisions about risk and risk-taking2007In: Social Choice and Welfare, ISSN 0176-1714, E-ISSN 1432-217X, Vol. 29, no 4, p. 649-663Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    There has been very little contact between risk studies and more general studies of social decision processes. It is argued that as a consequence of this, an oversimplified picture of social decision processes prevails in studies of risk. Tools from decision theory, welfare economics, and moral theory can be used to analyze the intricate inter-individual relationships that need to be treated in an adequate account of social decision-making about risk. However, this is not a matter of simple or straightforward application of existing theory. It is a challenging area for new theoretical developments.

  • 250.
    Hansson, Sven Ove
    KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology.
    Socratic Epistemology. Explorations of Knowledge-Seeking by Questioning2010In: History and Philosophy of Logic, ISSN 0144-5340, E-ISSN 1464-5149, Vol. 31, no 1, p. 101-103Article, book review (Refereed)
2345678 201 - 250 of 407
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf