Talk:Precautionary principle

message: "Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:" - what does that mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.165.103 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:" 

message: It seems to me that very few surviving scientist dispute the precautionary principle.  Can I mail you a package with instructions on how to mix them to keep yourself warm.  Will you just follow my instructions without taking precautions?
Clearly specifically when to use the precautionary principle is up to discussion but are there really that many rational people who dispute it's utility?
Biofuel (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not about a common sense "precaution", which you are trying to exemplify here. The article discusses a complex and far-fetching epistemological, philosophical and legal construct and from even brief scan of the article's contents it should be clear that every single aspect of the principle is disputed. There is no single accepted definition - there are at least 14 of them, differing in how far they go, from general, common-sense recommendation to be careful (which is criticised as truism) to "all new technology is suspected until proven safe". The latter is criticised as extreme and self-excluding as you can't "prove" safety of something you can't research. Furthermore, there's no consensus on scope of applicability, legal definition, there's no consensus literally on anything related to the principle. And majority of the criticism originates specifically from the scientific community who was most severely impacted by broad bans on research in fields such as genetic engineering, which was targeted in spite of lack of any scientific evidence of danger, or even presence of evidence showing lack of danger, but still using "precaution" as a pretext. Cloud200 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Actually it is disputed. Of you apply the precautionary principal to itself - you can't use it - it forbids it's own use. The fallacy come from the reality that not doing something can also cause unforeseeable harm as well.  
There is an old maxim that addresses this - precautionary principal implies prediction. 
Those who have knowledge don't predict.
Those who predict don't have knowledge
-- Lao Tzu  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.243.106.82 (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed? 

message: This is a 'guidelines to wear face-masks in public' issue in the UK.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1435
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-43
"The precautionary principle is conventionally used to advise caution in the uptake of innovations with known benefits but uncertain or unmeasurable downsides.(6,7) Greenhalgh et al. take the opposite approach: that action is imperative because the risks are minimal and the potential benefits great."
--2A02:C7F:48DA:6F00:24A2:CA3A:6293:F530 (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it apply when the change is 'acting to prevent harm', or just when the change is 'acting to gain benefit'?