skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


This content will become publicly available on November 8, 2025

Title: Methodologies of Uncertainty: Philosophical Disagreement in the Economics of Climate Catastrophes
What probability distribution should we use when calculating the expected utility of different climate policies? There’s a substantial literature on this question in economics, where it is largely treated as empirical or technical—that is, the question is what distri- bution is justified by the empirical evidence and/or economic theory. The question has a largely overlooked methodological component, however—a component that concerns how (climate) economics should be carried out, rather than what the science tells us. Indeed, the major dispute in the literature is over precisely this aspect of the question: figures like Nordhaus and Weitzman disagree less about the evidence or the theory than they do about which possibilities we should consider when making political decisions—or offering economic advice—about climate change. There are two important implications. First, at least some of the economic literature misfires in attempting to treat the debate as open to empirical or technical resolution; a better path to progress on the question involves further investigating the policy recommendations that can be derived from the two po- sitions. Second, the choice of discount rate is entangled with the choice of probability distribution: as both choices are responsive to the same normative reasons, we cannot evaluate the arguments in favour of a particular discount rate without considering the implications of those same arguments for the choice of distribution.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2042366
PAR ID:
10618624
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Publisher / Repository:
University of Chicago Press
Date Published:
Journal Name:
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
ISSN:
0007-0882
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; (, Climatic Change)
    null (Ed.)
    Abstract Standards of proof for attributing real world events/damage to global warming should be the same as in clinical or environmental lawsuits, argue Lloyd et al. The central question that we raise is effective communication. How can climate scientists best and effectively communicate their findings to crucial non-expert audiences, including public policy makers and civil society? To address this question, we look at the mismatch between what courts require and what climate scientists are setting as a bar of proof. Our first point is that scientists typically demand too much of themselves in terms of evidence, in comparison with the level of evidence required in a legal, regulatory, or public policy context. Our second point is to recommend that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommend more prominently the use of the category “more likely than not” as a level of proof in their reports, as this corresponds to the standard of proof most frequently required in civil court rooms. This has also implications for public policy and the public communication of climate evidence. 
    more » « less
  2. (, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences)
    null (Ed.)
    In the past decade, there has been a surge of interest in using games derived from experimental economics to test decision-making behaviour across species. In most cases, researchers are using the games as a tool, for instance, to understand what factors influence decision-making, how decision-making differs across species or contexts, or to ask broader questions about species’ propensities to cooperate or compete. These games have been quite successful in this regard. To what degree, however, do these games tap into species' economic decision-making? For the purpose of understanding the evolution of economic systems in humans, this is the key question. To study this, we can break economic decision-making down into smaller components, each of which is a potential step in the evolution of human economic behaviour. We can then use data from economic games, which are simplified, highly structured models of decision-making and therefore ideal for the comparative approach, to directly compare these components across species and contexts, as well as in relation to more naturalistic behaviours, to better understand the evolution of economic behaviour and the social and ecological contexts that influenced it. The comparative approach has successfully informed us about the evolution of other complex traits, such as language and morality, and should help us more deeply understand why and how human economic systems evolved. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Existence and prevalence of economic behaviours among non-human primates’. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; (, 2022 Meeting of the International Association of Computing and Philosophy)
    Our research team has been investigating methods for enabling robots to behave ethically while interacting with human beings. Our approach relies on two main sources of data for determining what counts as “ethical” behavior. The first are the views of average adults, which we refer to “folk morality”, and the second are the views of ethics experts. Yet the enterprise of identifying what should ground a robot’s decisions about ethical matters raises many fundamental metaethical questions. Here, we focus on one main metaethical question: would reason dedicate that it is more justifiable to base a robot’s decisions on folk morality or the guidance of ethics experts? The goal of this presentation is to highlight some of the arguments for and against each respective point of view, and the implications such arguments might have for the endeavor to encode ethical decision-making processes into robots. 
    more » « less
  4. (, Environmental research letters)
    It is well established that temperature variability affects a range of outcomes relevant to human welfare, including health, emotion and mood, and productivity across a number of economic sectors. However, a critical and still unresolved empirical question is whether temperature variation has a long-lasting effect on economic productivity and, therefore, whether damages compound over time in response to long-lived changes in temperature expected with climate change. Several studies have identified a relationship between temperature and gross domestic product (GDP), but empirical evidence as to the persistence of these effects is still weak. This paper presents a novel approach to isolate the persistent component of temperature effects on output using lower frequency temperature variation. The effects are heterogeneous across countries but collectively, using three different GDP datasets, we find evidence of persistent effects, implying temperature affects the determinants of economic growth, not just economic productivity. This, in turn, means that the aggregate effects of climate change on GDP may be far larger and far more uncertain than currently represented in integrated assessment models used to calculate the social cost of carbon. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; (, Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society)
    Algorithmic fairness research has traditionally been linked to the disciplines of philosophy, ethics, and economics, where notions of fairness are prescriptive and seek objectivity. Increasingly, however, scholars are turning to the study of what different people perceive to be fair, and how these perceptions can or should help to shape the design of machine learning, particularly in the policy realm. The present work experimentally explores five novel research questions at the intersection of the "Who," "What," and "How" of fairness perceptions. Specifically, we present the results of a multi-factor conjoint analysis study that quantifies the effects of the specific context in which a question is asked, the framing of the given question, and who is answering it. Our results broadly suggest that the "Who" and "What," at least, matter in ways that are 1) not easily explained by any one theoretical perspective, 2) have critical implications for how perceptions of fairness should be measured and/or integrated into algorithmic decision-making systems. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email