Formalized systems like cost-benefit analysis must inherently be incomplete.

Evidence

Economists sometimes contend that no such distinction exists between “taking account of” opportunity costs and accommodating them— mathematically—within the welfare calculus, much as they occasionally deny that a meaningful distinction exists between risk and uncertainty. Such contentions miss their mark, however, for they presume a kind of calculative compulsion that Revesz specifi cally rejected. Not all rationality is formalized, and despite the frequent claim that welfare maximization is desirable because it encourages comprehensive assessment of outcomes, it is in fact only formalized systems, such as costbenefi t analysis, that must, by their very nature, be incomplete. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 443

Categorization

• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Complex adaptive systems make the pretense of locating an optimal regulatory outcome deeply unwise. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 264; Welfare economics must deny its own incompleteness to sustain its optimization logic. — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 269; Cost-benefit analysis erases the moral remainders that technology standards preserve — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 578 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Cost-benefit analysis erases the moral remainders that technology standards preserve #exemplifies (0.90) — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 578
• Cost-benefit analysis causes the very distortions it claims to prevent #expands (0.85) — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere, 237
• Simplified definitions produce inadequate solutions to complex problems #corroborates (0.82) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 923