The status of truth in analysis of risk

To analyse is a cognitive activity generally associated with searches for truth. The epistemic value of the analyses crucially depends on whether they successfully track truth. However, despite its all-importance, the role and status of truth remains a highly peripheral topic in risk scholarly debates. The purpose of this article is to address this important topic through the lenses of four perspectives that assign a different status to truth in the evaluation of analytic performance. To what extent do the perspectives promote a view of truth compatible with distinguishable features of risk? As will be shown, all perspectives suffer from serious shortcomings. Nevertheless, by integrating the most promising parts of the most promising perspectives, a case is made for evaluative eclecticism. Rather than being absolute and predefined, the status of truth in analysis of risk is assumed to fluctuate with variances in the distinguishable features of the risk.