False Choices and Black Boxes

Michael R. Powers
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7312/columbia/9780231153676.003.0013
2014-01-01
Abstract:In recent decades, governments, corporations, and ordinary citizens the world over have become more aware of the potential impact of extreme-event, or catastrophe, risks. Dramatic events such as the September 11 attacks (2001), the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004), and Hurricane Katrina (2005) continue to raise these issues in the public mind while sending researchers from various disciplines scrambling to explain and forecast the frequencies and severities of such events. However, the rarity of catastrophes means that relevant data for estimating expected loss frequencies and severities is sparse, leaving risk-assessment experts with a difficult statistical problem: how to make reasonable forecasts of insured catastrophe losses based upon few historical observations. This chapter considers two troublesome issues arising from the paucity of catastrophe data: (1) a tendency to oversimplify conclusions from scientific research; and (2) the use of “black-box” forecasts that are not subject to impartial scientific examination and validation.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?