| Abstract: | This article is a reply to Thomas Boyer‐Kassem's discussion of my criticism of the precautionary principle published in this journal about a decade ago. Boyer‐Kassem does not question the logical validity of the theorem proved in my original article, but he brings up important questions about its scope. He also challenges the plausibility of some of the assumptions on which it is based. In this comment, I argue that each objection can be adequately dealt with. As a decision rule, the precautionary principle is (still) incoherent. |
