Decisionmakers have different perspectives about geologic hazards than
scientists and engineers.
These differences, which have been summarized by
Szanton (1981, table 3-1), are the reasons that implementation of loss reduction
measures are difficult. The differences are:
The ultimate objective of the decisionmaker is the approval of the
electorate; it is the respect of peers for the scientist/engineer;
The time horizon for the decisionmaker is short; it is long for the
scientist/engineer;
The focus of the decisionmaker is on the external logic of the problem;
it is on the internal logic for the scientist/engineer;
The mode of thought for the decisionmaker is deductive and particular;
it is inductive and generic for the scientist/engineer;
The most valued outcome for the decisionmaker is a reliable solution; it
is original insight for the scientist/engineer;
The mode of expression is simple and absolute for the decisionmaker; it
is abstruse and qualified for the scientist/engineer, and;
The preferred form of conclusion for the decisionmaker is one of "best
solution" with uncertainties submerged; it is multiple possibilities with
uncertainties emphasized for the scientist/engineer.
With these principles in mind, let us now turn the clock forward to the year 2000
and a discussion between a decisionmaker and a scientist as they seek to resolve
their philosophical differences and reach solutions to problems of earthquake-hazards
reduction
