Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Data Framework
1NC Framework............................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2NC O/V Framework....................................................................................................................................................................9 2NC Kickin O!t........................................................................................................................................................................... 10 "T# $% &eneric........................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Violation# K "''s........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Violation# (")sol!te *m+act Calc,----.........................................................................................................................................1. Violation# /xtinction *m+acts.........................................................................................................................................................10 Violation# 1ncertaint2 3(co!l4,5....................................................................................................................................................16 Violation# Certaint2 3(will,5...........................................................................................................................................................19 Violation (/x+ert was ri ht )e'ore,...............................................................................................................................................20 Violation# (%!lti+le /x+erts " ree,..............................................................................................................................................21 Violation# 7an !a e 3---5.............................................................................................................................................................22 Violation# 7aw 8e9iews.................................................................................................................................................................2: Violation# 7ow;<ro)/ =i h;%a /9ent..........................................................................................................................................2> Violation# N!clear <roli'eration.....................................................................................................................................................26 Violation# N!clear <roli'eration.....................................................................................................................................................29 Violation# *nternational 8elations..................................................................................................................................................:0 Violation# N!clear "cci4ents.........................................................................................................................................................:1 2NC /4!cation............................................................................................................................................................................... :2 "T# Tetlock <re4ictions &oo4.....................................................................................................................................................:: "T# Tetlock <re4ictions &oo4.....................................................................................................................................................:. "T# Fairness................................................................................................................................................................................... :> "T# To+ic ?+eci'ic /4!..................................................................................................................................................................:6 "T# "'' ?+eci'ic /4!.....................................................................................................................................................................:9 "T# No Case %eets........................................................................................................................................................................ .0 "T# ?ome Thin s =a9e No Data.....................................................................................................................................................1 "T# Framework Doesnt =a9e Data.................................................................................................................................................2 "T# Data @ Coo+te4/Calc............................................................................................................................................................... .: "T# Data @ Coo+te4/Calc............................................................................................................................................................... .0 "T# Data @ Calc 3Dillon5................................................................................................................................................................A "T# Data @ Tr!th............................................................................................................................................................................ .6 "T# Data @ Tr!th............................................................................................................................................................................ >0 "T# Data @ Tr!th............................................................................................................................................................................ >1 "T# <erm Do Both...................................................................................................................................................................... >2 "T# /xtra;8esol!tional B!r4en......................................................................................................................................................>: "T# C/* C!4 e Discretion/ Not Voter...........................................................................................................................................>. "T# C/* C!4 e Discretion............................................................................................................................................................ >A "T# C/* C!4 e Discretion............................................................................................................................................................ >9 "T# C/* C!4 e Discretion............................................................................................................................................................ 00 "T# C/* 8ole+la2in ....................................................................................................................................................................01 "T# C/* *m+licit Citation............................................................................................................................................................. 02 "T# C/* ?tan4+oint /+istemolo 2...............................................................................................................................................0: "T# C/* D!ali'ications.................................................................................................................................................................0. "T# C/* <eer 8e9iew................................................................................................................................................................... 0> Data# Ca+italism &oo4...................................................................................................................................................................00 Data# N!clear Deterrence &oo4.....................................................................................................................................................06 Data# N!clear Deterrence &oo4.....................................................................................................................................................A0 "FF "ns D!antitati9e <s2cholo 2 Ba4.......................................................................................................................................A1 "FF "ns D!antitati9e <olic2makin ...........................................................................................................................................A2 "FF 8easona)ilit2...................................................................................................................................................................... A:

1 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

1NC Framework

". /V"71"T/ CO%</T*N& <8/D*CT*ON? $*T= T=/ FO77O$*N& <8OB"B*7*TE COND*T*ON# ON7E " C7"*% <71? $"88"NT <71? ?T8ON& D"T" ?=O17D B/ &*V/N " D/F"17T N/"8 100F <8OB"B*7*TE ?T8ON& D"T" 8/D1*8/? (1) /G<7*C*T CITATION OF (2) QUANTIFIED 8/?/"8C=
"FF DO/?NHT %//T ; *T? $/"K D"T" 8osekin4 09 I%ark 8. 8osekin4J <h.D Ke9in B. &re or2 "lertness ?ol!tions The %oe)!s "9iation 8e+ort on K?cienti'ic an4 %e4ical /9al!ationo' Fli ht Time 7imitationsK# *n9ali4J *ns!''icientJ an4 8isk2 "lertness ?ol!tionsCan!ar2 2009L IctL $hile the extensi9e scienti'ic literat!re on 'ati !e has 4e'initi9el2 esta)lishe4 its role in re4!cin alertnessJ +er'ormanceJ an4 sa'et2J there remains a si ni'icant an4 critical a+ in the scienti'ic 4ata a9aila)le to a44ress +olic2 iss!es an4 +ro9i4e s+eci'ic sol!tions. There are 'ew st!4ies that ha9e s+eci'icall2 teste4 an alertness strate 2/'ati !e co!ntermeas!reor com+are4 an esta)lishe4 re !lator2 +olic2 to an alternati9e or M!anti'ie4 the )ene'itso' im+lementin an "lertness %ana ement <ro ram 3"%<5/Fati !e 8isk %ana ement?2stem 3F8%?5. 8e !lator2 a!thorities contin!all2 con'ront this a+ )etween the science esta)lishin 'ati !e as a si ni'icant sa'et2 iss!e an4 ha9in 4ata to a44ress +olic2 iss!es or +ro9i4e s+eci'ic sol!tions in their e''orts to a44ress 'ati !e risks thro! h +olic2makin . /"?"HsreM!est 'or scienti'ic an4 me4ical e9al!ation o' 16 s+eci'ic 'li ht time limitationM!estions is one more exam+le o' s!ch an e''ort. =owe9erJ the res!ltin %"8 a44ressin t he 16 +ose4 M!estions is in9ali4J ins!''icientJ an4 risk2. The 'ollowin hi hli hts some o' the most si ni'icant an4 rele9ant iss!es in each o' these areas. *. *n9ali4 a. No 4ata. *n 1: o' the 16 M!estions +ose4 there is 4irect acknowle4 ement that no 4ata is a9aila)le to a44ress the M!estion or the 4ata that are cite4 4o not s+eci'icall2 a44ressthe M!estion +ose4. There'oreJ A:F o' the M!estions 4o not ha9e an2 4ata or rele9antJa++ro+riate 4ata to +ro9i4e an e9al!ation o' the iss!e i4enti'ie4 3e. .J N1J 0J 10J 1:5. ). 8ecommen4ations witho!t 4ata. Tho! h acknowle4 in no 4ata or no rele9ant 4ata area9aila)leJ s+eci'ic recommen4ations are still ma4e to a44ress the M!estions +ose4. The+rimar2 task i4enti'ie4 was to +ro9i4e a scienti'ic an4 me4ical e9al!ation o' the M!estions+ose4J howe9erJ the %"8 oes )e2on4 this taskin to +ro9i4e s+eci'ic recommen4ations inten4e4 'or +olic2 makin . These recommen4ations were not 4ata;4ri9en an4 relie4 on eneraliOin 'rom other in'ormation to 'ill the K4ata a+K. =owe9erJ the recommen4ations are +resente4 in a manner to s! est that the2 co!l4 )e !se4 'or 4ata)ase4 +olicies. c. ?!)Pecti9e 4ata so!rces. " si ni'icant n!m)er o' the scienti'ic citations !se4 to s!)stantiate s+eci'ic +oints were st!4ies that !tiliOe4 onl2 s!)Pecti9eJ sel';re+ortin meas!res. ?!)Pecti9eJ sel';re+ort meas!res can )e 4iscre+ant 'rom o)Pecti9e meas!res o' alertness an4 +er'ormanceJ )iase4J an4 in'l!ence4 )2 9arie4 so!rces. *t is critical that scienti'ic 4ata !se4 as a )asis 'or +olic2 makin )e )ase4 on o)Pecti9eJ meas!ra)le o!tcomes relate4 to +er'ormanceJ rele9ant o+erational 9aria)lesJ )eha9ioral actionsJerrorsJ inci4entsJ acci4ents an4 a++ro+riate sa'et2 meas!res. ?!)Pecti9e meas!res can com+lement these other 9arie4 o)Pecti9e o!tcomes )!t are hi hl2 M!estiona)le as the excl!si9e so!rce 'or an e9al!ation or recommen4ation. For exam+leJ the %"8
cites+re9io!s N"?" research relate4 to a s!)Pecti9e s!r9e2 on slee+ M!antit2 an4 M!alit2 inon)oar4 crew rest/)!nk 'acilities 315. Eet the %"8 4oes not incl!4e a com+lementar2N"?" st!42 that incl!4e4 o)Pecti9e +h2siolo ical meas!res o' slee+ M!antit2 an4 M!alit2in on)oar4 rest 'acilities 4!rin act!al o+erations in9ol9in two 4i''erent 'li ht +atternsan4 three 4i''erent aircra't 325. 4. * nores o+erational ex+erience an4 sa'et2 histor2. $hile a scienti'ic an4 me4icale9al!ation o' the 16 M!estions +ose4 is rele9antJ eM!all2 rele9ant is the o+erationalex+erience an4 sa'et2 histor2 o' the acti9ities )ein a44resse4. <olic2 makin to a44ress esta)lishe4 sa'et2 iss!es co!l4 consi4er sa'et2 4ataJ o+erational ex+erienceJ rele9antscienti'ic 'in4in sJ an4 where a++ro+riateJ economic 'actors. $hen the %"8 oes)e2on4 scienti'ic an4 me4ical e9al!ation to make K+racticalK recommen4ationsJ it entersa realm where these other rele9ant 'actors 3sa'et2 4ataJ o+erational ex+erienceJ HeconomicsJ etc.5 )ecome si ni'icant consi4erations.

e. No M!anti'ication o' risk/)ene'it. *n +olic2;makin e''ortsJ it is critical to o )e2on4 4oc!mentation o' an e''ect to M!anti'2in s+eci'ics o' the risk. 8e ar4in 'ati !eJ thistranslates into )oth M!anti'2in the risk an4 i4enti'2in the s+eci'ic areas where theserisks are ex+resse4. FirstJ this allows 4ecisions a)o!t what s+eci'ic 'ati !e;relate4 risks to a44ress an4 their +riorities. ?econ4J it +ro9i4es a )asis 'or 4eterminin ex+ecte4JM!anti'ia)le )ene'its an4 o!tcomes that co!l4 )e meas!re4 )2 im+lementin +olicies an4acti9ities. The %"8 ex+ert +anel ma4e an e''ort to !se this a++roach in a co!+le o' itsres+onses 3e. .J N2J 125. =owe9er, the quantification of risks and subsequent, quantifiable benefits of implementing policies and recommendations sho!l4 )e the lead issue in a44ressin all o' the M!estions +ose4.

2 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

B. VOT/ N/& ON <8/?1%<T*ON

NDT Thiele

"??1%/ T=/ "FF ="8%?J ?O7V/NCEJ "ND OT=/8 <8/D*CT*ON? ="V/ Q/8O /FF/CT 1N7/?? <8OV/N $*T= ?T8ON& D"T" B/C"1?/ T=/E "8/ $*T=*N T=/ ?T"T*?T*C"7 (%"8&*N FO8 /88O8, Qellner 0A I"rnol4 &ra4!ate ?chool o' B!sinessJ 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica o <hiloso+h2 an4 o)Pecti9es o' econometrics Co!rnal o' /conometrics Vol!me 1:0J *ss!e 2J Fe)r!ar2 200AJ <a es ::1;::9L IctL On the relation o' science an4 econometricsJ * ha9e 'or lon em+hasiOe4 the !nit2 o' science +rinci+leJ which Karl <earson +!t 'orwar4 as 'ollows# the !nit2 o' science is a !nit2 o' metho4s em+lo2e4 in anal2Oin an4 learnin 'rom ex+erience an4 4ata. The s!)Pect matter 4isci+line ma2 )e economicsJ histor2J +h2sicsJ or the likeJ )!t the metho4s em+lo2e4 in anal2Oin an4 learnin 'rom 4ata are )asicall2 the same. "s 3Ce''re2sJ 19>A5 an4 3Ce''re2sJ 190A5 ex+resses the i4eaJ (There m!st )e a !ni'orm stan4ar4 o' 9ali4it2 'or all h2+othesesJ irres+ecti9e o' the s!)Pect. Di''erent laws ma2 hol4 in 4i''erent s!)PectsJ )!t the2 m!st )e teste4 )2 the same criteriaR otherwise we ha9e no !arantee that o!r 4ecisions will )e those warrante4 )2 the 4ata an4 not merel2 the res!lt o' ina4eM!ate anal2sis or o' )elie9in what we want to )elie9e., Th!s the !nit2 o' science +rinci+le sets the same stan4ar4s 'or work in the nat!ral an4 social sciences. For exam+leJ this ran e o' consi4erations is +artic!larl2 rele9ant 'or those in economics who cross;correlate 9aria)les an4 assert ca!sation on the )asis o' s!ch correlations alone 3?ee Qellner 319A9a5 'or consi4eration o' s!ch tests an4 o' alternati9e 4e'initions o' ca!salit25 or those who carelessl2 test all h2+otheses in the (>F acce+trePect s2n4rome., "lsoJ we m!st em+hasiOe the im+ortance o' a eneral !ni'ie4 set o' metho4s 'or !se in science an4 the !n4esira)ilit2 o' !nnecessar2 Par on an4 a4 hoc metho4s. &i9en that we take the !nit2 o' science +rinci+le serio!sl2J we ma2 next ask what are the main o)Pecti9es o' science. "s Karl <earsonJ =arol4 Ce''re2sJ an4 others stateJ one o' the main o)Pecti9es o' scienceJ an4 * a44 o' econometricsJ is that o' learnin 'rom o!r ex+erience an4 4ata. Knowle4 e so o)taine4 ma2 )e so! ht 'or its own sakeJ 'or exam+leJ to satis'2 o!r c!riosit2 a)o!t economic +henomena an4/or 'or +ractical +olic2 an4 other 4ecision +!r+oses. One +art o' o!r knowle4 e is merel2 4escri+tion o' what we ha9e o)ser9e4R the more im+ortant +art is eneraliOation or in4!ctionJ that is that +art which (S consists o' makin in'erences 'rom +ast ex+erience to +re4ict '!t!re Ior as 2et !no)ser9e4L ex+erienceJ, as Ce''re2s +!ts it. Th!s there are at least two com+onents to o!r knowle4 eJ 4escri+tion an4 eneraliOation or in4!ction. $hile eneraliOation or in4!ction is !s!all2 consi4ere4 to )e more im+ortantJ 4escri+tion +la2s a si ni'icant role in scienceJ incl!4in economics. For exam+leJ B!rns an4 %itchellHs mon!mental NB/8 st!42 Measuring Business Cycles is mainl2 4escri+ti9e )!t 9al!a)le in +ro9i4in eneral 'eat!res o' )!siness c2cles a)o!t which others can eneraliOe. $hile some ha9e 4amne4 this work as (meas!rement witho!t theor2J, the o++osite sin o' (theor2 witho!t meas!rement, seems m!ch more serio!s. *n 'act there are too man2 mathematical economic theories which ex+lain no +ast 4ata an4 which are inca+a)le o' makin +re4ictions a)o!t '!t!re or as 2et !no)ser9e4 ex+erience. ?!ch economic theories are mathematical denk s!ielen an4 not in4!cti9e eneraliOations to which * re'erre4 a)o9e. F!rtherJ * shall later mention another im+ortant role 'or 4escri+tion in connection with re4!cti9e in'erence. *n learnin 'rom o!r ex+erience an4 4ataJ it is critical that we !n4erstan4 the roles an4 nat!re o' three kin4s o' in'erenceJ namel2J 4e4!cti9e in'erenceJ in4!cti9e in'erenceJ an4 re4!cti9e in'erence. "s re ar4s 4e4!cti9e in'erenceJ 8eichen)ach 319>65 ex+lainsJ (7o ical +roo' is calle4 4e4!ctionR the concl!sion is o)taine4 )2 4e4!cin it 'rom other statementsJ calle4 the +remises o' the ar !ment. The ar !ment is so constr!cte4 that i' the +remises are tr!e the concl!sions m!st also )e tr!e. S *t !nwra+sJ so to s+eakJ the concl!sion that was wra++e4 !+ in the +remises., Clearl2J m!ch economic theor2 is an exercise in 4e4!cti9e in'erence. =owe9erJ the ina4eM!acies o' 4e4!cti9e in'erence 'or scienti'ic work m!st )e note4. FirstJ tra4itional 4e4!cti9e in'erence lea4s P!st to the extreme attit!4es o' +roo'J 4is+roo'J or i norance with res+ect to +ro+ositions. There is no +ro9ision 'or a statement like (" +ro+osition is +ro)a)l2 tr!e, in 4e4!cti9e in'erence or lo ic. This is a 4e'icienc2 o' 4e4!ction 'or scienti'ic work wherein s!ch statements are 9er2 wi4el2 em+lo2e4 an4 'o!n4 to )e !se'!l. ?econ4J 4e4!ction or 4e4!cti9e in'erence alone +ro9i4es no !i4e 'or choice amon lo icall2 correct alternati9e ex+lanations or theories. "s is well knownJ 'or an2 i9en set o' 4ataJ there is an in'init2 o' mo4els which 'it the 4ata exactl2. De4!ction +ro9i4es no !i4e 'or selection amon this in'init2 o' mo4els. Th!sJ there is a nee4 'or a t2+e o' in'erence which is )roa4er than 4e4!cti9e in'erence an4 which 2iel4s statements less extreme than 4e4!cti9e in'erence. This t2+e o' in'erence is calle4 in4!cti9e in'erence )2 Ce''re2s. *t ena)les !s to associate +ro)a)ilities with +ro+ositions an4 to mani+!late them in a consistentJ lo ical wa2 to take acco!nt o' new in'ormation. De4!cti9e statements o' +roo' an4 4is+roo' are then 9iewe4 as limitin cases o' in4!cti9e lo ic wherein +ro)a)ilities a++roach one or OeroJ res+ecti9el2. Ce''re2s 3190A5J who has ma4e maPor contri)!tions to the 4e9elo+ment o' in4!cti9e lo ic in his )ook Theor2 o' <ro)a)ilit2 states that in4!cti9e in'erence in9ol9es (makin in'erences 'rom +ast ex+erience to +re4ict '!t!re ex+erience, )2 !se o' in4!cti9e eneraliOations or laws. "n4 i9en act!al o!tcomesJ the +roce4!res o' in4!cti9e in'erence allow !s to re9ise +ro)a)ilities associate4 with in4!cti9e eneraliOations or laws to re'lect the in'ormation containe4 in new 4ata. Note that 'or Ce''re2s in4!ction is not an economical 4escri+tion o' +ast 4ataJ as %ach s! este4 since %ach omitte4 the all; im+ortant +re4icti9e as+ect o' in4!ction. F!rtherJ +re4icti9e in4!cti9e in'erences ha9e an !na9oi4a)le !ncertaint2 associate4 with themJ as =!me +ointe4 o!t man2 2ears a o. For exam+leJ it is im+ossi)le to +ro9eJ 4e4!cti9el2 or in4!cti9el2 that eneraliOations or lawsJ e9en the Chica o M!antit2 theor2 o' mone2J are a)sol!tel2 tr!e. /9en NewtonHs lawsJ which were consi4ere4 (a)sol!tel2 tr!e, )2 man2 +h2sicists in the nineteenth cent!r2J ha9e )een re+lace4 )2 /insteinHs laws. Th!s there is an !na9oi4a)le !ncertaint2 associate4 with laws in all areas o' scienceJ incl!4in economics. *n4!cti9e lo ic +ro9i4es a : / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

M!anti'ication o' this !ncertaint2 )2 associatin +ro)a)ilities with laws an4 +ro9i4in lo icall2 consistent +roce4!res 'or chan in these +ro)a)ilities as new e9i4ence arises. *n this re ar4J +ro)a)ilit2 is 9iewe4 as re+resentin a 4e ree o' reasona)le )elie' with the limitin 9al!es o' Oero )ein com+lete 4is)elie' or 4is+roo' an4 o' one )ein com+lete )elie' o' +roo'. For Ce''re2sJ Ba2esian statistics is im+lie4 )2 his theor2 o' scienti'ic metho4. Th!sJ Ba2esian statistics is the technolo 2 o' in4!cti9e in'erence. The o+erations o' Ba2esian statistics ena)le !s to make +ro)a)ilit2 statements a)o!t +arametersT 9al!es an4 '!t!re 9al!es o' 9aria)les. "lsoJ o+timal +oint estimates an4 +oint +re4ictions can )e rea4il2 o)taine4 )2 Ba2esian metho4s. <ro)a)ilities an4/or o44s ratios relatin to com+etin h2+otheses or mo4els can )e e9al!ate4 which re'lect initial in'ormation an4 sam+le in'ormation. Th!sJ man2 in'erence +ro)lems enco!ntere4 in in4!ction can )e sol9e4 )2 Ba2esian metho4s an4 these sol!tions are com+ati)le with Ce''re2sHs theor2 o' scienti'ic metho4. ?eeJ e. .J Berr2 et al. 319905J Box an4 Tiao 319A:5J De&root 319A05J Fien)er an4 Qellner 319A>5 an4 3QellnerJ 19A15 an4 3QellnerJ 19A9)5 'or +resentationsJ 4isc!ssions an4 a++lications o' Ba2esian metho4s. To ill!strate in4!cti9e in'erence in econometricsJ consi4er %ilton Frie4manHs Theor2 o' the Cons!m+tion F!nction. *n his )ook Frie4man set 'orth a )ol4 in4!cti9e eneraliOation whichJ he showe4J ex+laine4 9ariation in m!ch +ast 4ataJ a 'act that increase4 most in4i9i4!alsT 4e ree o' reasona)le )elie' in his theor2. F!rtherJ Frie4man +ro+ose4 a n!m)er o' a44itional tests o' his mo4el an4 +re4icte4 their o!tcomesJ an exam+le o' what we re'erre4 to a)o9e as in4!cti9e in'erence. %an2 o' these tests ha9e )een +er'orme4 with res!lts com+ati)le with Frie4manHs +re4ictions. ?!ch res!lts enhance the 4e ree o' reasona)le )elie' that we ha9e in Frie4manHs theor2. This is the kin4 o' research in economics an4 econometricsJ which ill!strates well the nat!re o' in4!cti9e in'erence an4 isJ in m2 o+inionJ most +ro4!cti9e. "s re ar4s in4!cti9e eneraliOationsJ there are a 'ew +ointsJ which 4eser9e to )e em+hasiOe4. FirstJ a useful starting point for inductive generalization in many instances is the proposition that all variation is considered random or nonsystematic unless shown otherwise. " oo4 exam+le o' the 'r!it'!lness o' s!ch a startin +oint is i9en )2 the ran4om walk h2+othesis 'or stock +rices in stock market research. %an2 researchers ha9e +!t 'orwar4 mo4els to 'orecast stock +rices )2 !se o' 9aria)les s!ch as a!to salesJ chan es in mone2J an4 the like onl2 to 'in4 that their 'orecasts are no )etter than those 2iel4e4 )2 a ran4om walk mo4el. *n other areasJ when a researcher proposes a new effect, the burden is on him to show that data support the new effect. The initial hypothesis is thus, No effect unless shown otherwise.

. / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

/V/N *F T=/*8 <8/D*CT*ON I" T81/ EO1 ?=O17D ?T*77 VOT/ N/&"T*V/ TO TO C8/"T/ *NC/NT*V/? FO8 D/B"T/ OV/8 ?T8ON& D"T".
?ter)a 00 I?on2a K. De+artment o' <s2cholo 2 1ni9ersit2 o' North Carolina at Cha+el =ill %iscon4!ct in the "nal2sis an4 8e+ortin o' Data# Bri4 in %etho4olo ical an4 /thical " en4as 'or Chan e /T=*C? U B/="V*O8J 103.5J :0>:16 2000L IctL *n concl!sionJ ethical an4 metho4olo ical s+ecialistsT atekee+in e''orts in the area o' 4ata anal2sis an4 re+ortin ha9e remaine4 strikin l2 4is+arate an4 ins!lar to 4ate. The2 neither coor4inate with each other nor in9ol9e the research comm!; nit2 in o!treach e''orts aime4 at en en4erin sel';monitorin . Their in4e+en4ent e''orts ha9e le4 to ins!''icient examination o' the +re9alence o' o9ert an4 co9ert miscon4!ctJ an4 to inconsistent stan4ar4s that are !nrelia)l2 en'orce4. Eet the M!alit2 control o' 4ata anal2ses an4 re+ortin +ractices is o' +rime im+ortance. Th!sJ * +ro+ose three tactics to im+ro9e the +re9entionJ 4etectionJ an4 4eterrence o' anal2sis an4 re+ortin miscon4!ct that each in9ol9e mel4in o' the metho4olo ical an4 ethical arenas. FirstJ +s2cholo ists nee4 to )etter coor4inate ethical an4 metho4olo ical stan4ar4s +ertainin to 4ata anal2sis an4 re+ortin . <!)lishe4 metho4olo ical stan4ar4s can lack the ethical im+erati9e to moti9ate chan eJ an4 +!)lishe4 ethical stan4ar4s can lack the s+eci'icit2 to 4irect that chan e. One 'irst ste+ towar4 coor4inatin stan4ar4 settin across ethical an4 metho4olo ical s+ecialties is o''ere4 here. %etho4olo ists co!l4 )e incl!4e4 on the committees o' +s2cholo ists who create an4 re9ise research ethics co4es an4 who res+on4 to alle ations o' research ethics miscon4!ct. *n t!rnJ committees 4isseminatin metho4olo ical

!i4anceJ s!ch as the "<" Task Force on ?tatistical *n'erenceJ co!l4 incl!4e +s2cholo ists with research ethics ex+ertise to ai4 in inte ratin an ethical +ers+ecti9e. ?econ4J we nee4 to increase a++lie4 researchersT access to coor4inate4 trainin in M!antitati9e metho4s an4 research ethics. This will a''or4 them the 4etaile4 metho4olo ical knowle4 e an4 the ethical im+erati9e to )etter sel'monitor their own anal2sis an4 re+ortin . ?+eci'icall2J a cross; 'ertiliOation o' ethics an4 metho4s instr!ction nee4s to take +lace thro! ho!t !n4er ra4!ate an4 ra4!ate trainin J an4 also at the 'ac!lt2 le9el. C!rrentl2J statistical an4 metho4olo ical co!rses are t2+icall2 4e9oi4 o' research ethics 4isc!ssionsJ an4 9ice 9ersa. *n 'actJ these ethics co!rses an4 metho4s co!rses are t2+icall2 o''ere4 in 4i''erent 4e+artmentsJ )2 'ac!lt2 mem)ers who rarel2 interact. Fac!lt2 !est lect!res 'rom the com+anion 4isci+line can )e in to )ri4 e these 'iel4s. *n a44itionJ short M!antitati9e worksho+s 3s!ch as those o''ere4 )2 the *nter!ni9ersit2 Consorti!m 'or <olitical an4 ?ocial 8esearch5 an4 ethics worksho+s 3s!ch as those s+onsore4 )2 the "<" /thics Committee5 are o!tlets 'or reachin researchers who ma2 not ha9e access to metho4olo ical or ethical s+ecialists at their home instit!tions. 3Neither the *nter!ni9ersit2 Consorti!m 'or <olitical an4 ?ocial 8esearch nor the /thics Committee c!rrentl2 lists ethics in 4ata anal2sis an4 re+ortin as a to+ic area co9ere4 in their e4!cational o!treach e''orts.5 *t is essential that !n4er ra4!ate an4 ra4!ate +s2cholo 2 st!4ents )e ma4e min4'!l o' the intersection o' their metho4olo ical +ractices with ethical im+erati9es as the2 )e in to con4!ct their own in9esti ationsV)e'ore +oor ha)its )ecome in raine4. $e cannot ex+ect st!4ents to com+letel2 a!tonomo!sl2 make the connections )etween ethical an4 metho4olo ical im+erati9esR we nee4 to sca''ol4 them in this en4ea9or. This t2+e o' )len4e4 e4!cational e''ort wo!l4 increase the +ool o' Po!rnal an4 rant re9iewers M!ali'ie4 to 4etect an4 en'orce stan4ar4s 'or anal2sis an4 re+ortin con4!ct. ThisJ in t!rnJ wo!l4 ren4er the 'iel4Ts examination o' 4ata anal2sis an4 re+ortin +ractices more +er9asi9e an4 more relia)le. Thir4J +s2cholo ists nee4 to more consistentl2 im+lement strate ies 'or +re9entin an4 4eterrin 4ata anal2sis an4 re+ortin miscon4!ct. 8an4om a!4itin o' anal2ses in articles s!)mitte4 'or +eer re9iewJ an4 +erha+s also s2stematic s!r9e2in o' +eer re9iews themsel9esJ are +otential +re9entati9e 4eterrents 3KimmelJ 19905. These 4eterrents wo!l4 essentiall2 )e an ex+ansion o' the Co4eTs man4ate to kee+ 4ata a9aila)le 'or +otential reanal2sis. *' an a!4it o' a i9en anal2sis re9eals errors or 4iscre+anciesJ the res+onse wo!l4 not )e to tr2 to 4etermine whether this error was intentional or acci4ental. *nstea4J Po!rnal e4itors an4 re9iewers wo!l4 take it as their res+onsi)ilit2 to in'orm a!thors o' the ethical or metho4olo ical stan4ar4s that were 9iolate4 an4 iss!e a +enalt2Vs!ch as a reM!est 'or reanal2sis or re+licationVre ar4less o' intent. This remo9es some o' the +ro'essional hesitanc2J 'ear o' re+risalsJ an4 time in9ol9e4 in tr2in to +ro9e intentional miscon4!ct. This s! estion is in line with ?nowTs 319>95 ar !ment that (i' we 4o not +enaliOe 'alse statements ma4e in errorJ we o+en !+ the wa2J 4onTt 2o! seeJ 'or 'alse statements )2 intention, 3M!ote4 in KimmelJ 1990J +. 2A:5.

> / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

T=*? *? B/C"1?/ D"T" /D1C"T*ON O1T$/*&=? T=/ 8*?K OF T=/ "FF *%<"CT? ?T8ON& D"T" *? K/E TO &OOD <O7*CE%"K*N& ?aks 60 I%ichael C. <ro' o' 7aw at "riOona ?tate 1ni9ersit2J cite4 in man2 ?!+reme Co!rt o+inions. B.".J B.?.J <enns2l9ania ?tate 1ni9ersit2J 1909R %.".J 19A2R <h.D.J Ohio ?tate 1ni9ersit2J 19A>R %.?.7.J Eale 7aw ?choolJ 196:. -0: *F T=/8/ B/ " C8*?*?J =O$ ?="77 $/ KNO$ *TW .0 %4. 7. 8e9. 0: FallJ 1960L IctL *. /%<*8*C"7 /V*D/NC/ OF T=/ <8OB7/% "ND *T? C"1?/? One o' the most im+ortant as+ects o' this as well as relate4 earlier articles )2 <ro'essor &alanter IFN2L an4 his collea !es IFN:L is that the2 inM!ire into the 4e ree to which rele9ant em+irical e9i4ence s!++orts the claims ma4e concernin a liti ation ex+losionJ an4 the2 share with !s the 'in4in s o' that inM!ir2. The ex+losion a++ears to )e more rhetorical than real. Those o''erin wholesale con4emnation o' o!r ci9il P!stice s2stemJ an4 co!nselin a 9ariet2 o' re'orms ran in 'rom tinkerin to -0. ra4ical alterationJ are con'i4ent the2 know a serio!s +ro)lem exists an4J what is moreJ the2 know its ca!ses. IFN.L Their lan !a e is so stron an4 so clear that one hesitates to 4o!)t the acc!rac2 o' their 9ision. B!t in s!++ort o' their 9iewsJ the2 enerall2 o''er little more than !ns!++orte4 assertions or anec4otesJ exam+les o' which <ro'essor &alanter has cite4. %ere assertion is sim+l2 thatJ an4 re+eatin somethin o'ten or enlar in the chor!s 4oes not make it an2 more tr!e. "s * ha9e note4 elsewhereJ IFN>L o9ernment )2 anec4ote is a )a4 i4ea not )eca!se the anec4otes are !ntr!e or are not e9i4ence 3tho! h sometimes the2 are !ntr!e an4 there'ore are not e9i4ence5J IFN0L )!t )eca!se the2 contri)!te so little to 4e9elo+in a clear +ict!re o' the sit!ation we are concerne4 a)o!t. *t makes a 4i''erence i' 'or e9er2 ten anec4otes in which an !n4eser9in +lainti'' )ankr!+ts an innocent 4e'en4antJ OeroJ tenJ one h!n4re4J one tho!san4J or ten tho!san4 eM!al an4 o++osite inP!stices were 4one to 4eser9in an4 innocent +lainti''s. IFNAL The +ro+ortion o' cases that res!lts in some sort o' errorJ IFN6L an4 the ratio o' one kin4 o' error to the otherJ o! ht to )e o' reater interest to a serio!s +olic2;maker than a han4'!l o' anec4otes on either si4e o' an iss!e. "'ter allJ the re'orms to )e a4o+te4 are inten4e4 to chan e that ratio an4 the tens o' tho!san4s o' anec4otes it s!mmariOes. This )rin s !sJ thenJ to the kin4 o' in'ormation that sho!l4 'orm the core o' the 4e)ate# 4ata. *' the ex+losion is real an4 the -0> crisis serio!sJ it sho!l4 not )e 4i''ic!lt to 'in4 4ata con'irmin those 'ears. *n this re ar4J <ro'essor &alanter makes two im+ortant contri)!tions to the lia)ilit2 crisis 4e)ate. =e s!mmariOes some im+ortant 4ataJ an4 he hel+s !s to think a)o!t what the2 mean. Conscientio!s +olic2;makers will )e intereste4 to learn that 96F o' ci9il liti ation oes on in state co!rtsJ that those 'ilin s ha9e 4ecline4 in the +ast se9eral 2earsJ an4 that e9en tort 'ilin s ha9e increase4 onl2 1F more than +o+!lation rowth. IFN9L Those !r in re'ormJ when the2 4o +oint to 4ataJ !s!all2 +oint to the 2F o' liti ation that is han4le4 )2 'e4eral co!rts. <ro'essor &alanter hel+s !s to inter+ret the meanin o' those 'e4eral 4ataJ IFN10L which show a 12:F increase in 'ilin s o9er the +ast 4eca4e. First o' allJ he notes that an increase in 'ilin s is not necessaril2 a re'lection o' an increase in +lainti''sH (liti io!sness., Chan es in 'ilin rates are eM!all2 a re'lection o' 4e'en4antsH resistance to resol9in 4is+!tes short o' liti ation. The 'ilin rate re'lectsJ as wellJ the 9ol!me o' transactionsJ the n!m)er o' actiona)le inP!ries res!ltin 'rom those transactionsJ law2ersH case;screenin +racticesJ an4J no 4o!)tJ n!mero!s other9aria)les. IFN11L "n2 real !n4erstan4in o' what is oin on reM!ires knowin what lies )ehin4 an4 i9es rise to an2 chan e 3or sta)ilit25 in 'ilin rates. %oreo9erJ <ro'essor &alanter shows !s that the 12:F increase -00 means somethin other than a++ears at 'irst )l!sh. B2 4isa re atin those cases into the cate ories s!++lie4 )2 the "4ministrati9e O''ice o' the 1nite4 ?tates Co!rtsJ <ro'essor &alanter 'in4s that it is the 'e4eral o9ernment itsel' that has a44e4 )2 'ar the lar est 'raction o' the increase in liti ationJ ha9in increase4 its 'ilin s 3o' o9er;+a2ment reco9eries5 )2 0J06:FX IFN12L /xce+t 'or +ro4!cts lia)ilit2 3o' which one;'o!rth were as)estos claimsJ now wanin 5J the 'e4eral caseloa4 'or tort cases has )een 'airl2 sta)le. These are )!t a 'ew ill!strations o' the wa2 <ro'essor &alanterJ an4 other em+iricall2 oriente4 le al scholarsJ 'orce !s to 4eal with the e9i4ence o' the worl4 we +ro+ose to resha+e thro! h law re'orm. $e nee4 not limit +olic2 4e)ates to a m!t!all2 !nin'ormati9e swa++in o' anec4otes or a heate4 exchan e o' M!otations. *n m2 9iewJ it is enormo!sl2 hel+'!l to in'orm o!rsel9es a)o!t o!r worl4 em+iricall2J an4 to think intelli entl2 a)o!t the alternati9e inter+retations o' the rele9ant em+irical 4ata. IFN1:L That the to+o ra+hic ma+ o' 9oci'ero!s re'ormers is not consistent with the most '!n4amental 'eat!res o' the lan4sca+e o9er which the2 +res!me to rei n sho!l4 i9e !s all +a!se. *' their assessment o' o!r con4itionVthe easiest +art o' +ro)lem;sol9in V can )e so inconsistent with the e9i4enceJ we mi ht well )e hesitant to acce+t their 4ia nosis o' ca!ses an4 their +rescri)e4 treatment.

0 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

<8*O8 D*?C7O?18/ OF D"T" 8/?17T? *N %O8/ "CC18"T/ <8/D*CT*ON? =/8/H? ?T8ON& D"T" $icherts et al 2011 ICelte %. $icherts-J %arPan BakkerJ D2lan %olenaar <s2cholo 2 De+artmentJ Fac!lt2 o' ?ocial an4 Beha9ioral ?ciencesJ 1ni9ersit2 o' "mster4amJ "mster4amJ The Netherlan4s K$illin ness to ?hare 8esearch Data *s 8elate4 to the ?tren th o' the /9i4ence an4 the D!alit2 o' 8e+ortin o' ?tatistical 8es!ltsK <7o? ON/ 03115L IctL Ihtt+#//www.+losone.or /article/in'oF:"4oi F2F10.1:A1F2FPo!rnal.+one.0020626L *n the c!rrent st!42J we relate4 the willin ness to share 4ata 'rom .9 +a+ers +!)lishe4 in Co!rnal o' <ersonalit2 an4 ?ocial <s2cholo 2 or Co!rnal o' /x+erimental <s2cholo 2# 7earnin J%emor2J an4 Co nition to two rele9ant characteristics o' the statistical o!tcomes re+orte4 in the +a+ersJ namel2 the internal consistenc2 o' the statistical res!lts an4 the 4istri)!tion o' si ni'icantl2 re+orte4 3+J.0>5 +;9al!es. $e restricte4 the attention to C<?< an4 C/<#7%CJ )eca!se 315 a!thors in these Po!rnals were more willin to share 4ata than a!thors in the other Po!rnals 'rom which $icherts et al. reM!este4 4ataJ 325 no corres+on4in a!thors in these two Po!rnals 4ecline4 to share 4ataJ )eca!se the2 were +art o' an on oin +roPect or )eca!se o' +ro+riet2 ri hts or ethical consi4erationsJ an4 3:5 st!4ies in these two Po!rnals were 'airl2 homo eneo!s in terms o' anal2sis an4 4esi n 3mostl2 la) ex+eriments5. S /rrors in the 8e+ortin o' ?tatistical 8es!lts The .9 +a+ers containe4 a total o' 11.6 test statistics that were +resente4 as si ni'icant at +J.0>. Ta)le 1 +resents 'or each +a+er the n!m)er o' si ni'icantl2 re+orte4 test res!ltsJ the n!m)er o' misre+ortin errorsJ an4 the me4ian an4 a9era e o' all en!inel2 si ni'icant +;9al!es 3as )ase4 on the recalc!late4 9al!es5. Fort2;nine o' these statistics 3..:F5 were inconsistent with the re+orte4 3ran e o'5 +9al!es. *n 'ort2;se9en o' the inconsistent res!lts 39>.9F5J the re+orte4 +;9al!e 3ran e5 was smaller than the recalc!late4 +;9al!e. Fi !re 1 i9es the ori in o' three t2+es o' re+ortin errors. "ltho! h >1.1F 3>6A5 o' the tests statistics were 'rom +a+ers 'rom which no 4ata were share4J most incorrectl2 re+orte4 +;9al!es 3:0 o!t o' .9R A:.>F5 ori inate4 'rom these +a+ers. These errors incl!4e M!ite small ones 3e. .J +@.0002 re+orte4 as +J.00015. Twent2;ei ht o' the :2 +;9al!es 36A.>F5 that were incorrectl2 re+orte4 at the le9el o' the 2n4 4ecimal 3e. .J + @.02 re+orte4 as +J.015 were 'rom +a+ers 'rom which no 4ata were share4. Ne ati9e )inomial re ressions 3Ta)le 25 that acco!nte4 'or the n!m)er o' test statistics an4 the a9era e +; 9al!es in each +a+er 3see )elow5 showe4 that rel!ctance to share 4ata was +re4icti9e o' the +re9alence o' )oth t2+es o' re+ortin errors ... *n this sam+le o' +s2cholo 2 +a+ersJ the a!thorsT rel!ctance to share 4ata was associate4 with more errors in re+ortin o' statistical res!lts an4 with relati9el2 weaker e9i4ence 3a ainst the n!ll h2+othesis5. The 4oc!mente4 errors are ar !a)l2 the ti+ o' the ice)er o' +otential errors an4 )iases in statistical anal2ses an4 the re+ortin o' statistical res!lts. *t is rather 4isconcertin that ro! hl2 >0F o' +!)lishe4 +a+ers in +s2cholo 2 contain re+ortin errors I::L an4 that the !nwillin ness to share 4ata was most +rono!nce4 when the errors concerne4 statistical si ni'icance. "ltho! h o!r res!lts are consistent with the notion that the rel!ctance to share 4ata is enerate4 )2 the a!thorTs 'ear that reanal2sis will ex+ose errors an4 lea4 to o++osin 9iews on the res!ltsJ o!r res!lts are correlational in nat!re an4 so the2 are o+en to alternati9e inter+retations. "ltho! h the two ro!+s o' +a+ers are similar in terms o' research 'iel4s an4 4esi nsJ it is +ossi)le that the2 4i''er in other re ar4s. Nota)l2J statisticall2 ri oro!s researchers ma2 archi9e their 4ata )etter an4 ma2 )e more attenti9e towar4s statistical +ower than less statisticall2 ri oro!s researchers. *' soJ more statisticall2 ri oro!s researchers will more +rom+tl2 share their 4ataJ con4!ct more +ower'!l testsJ an4 so re+ort lower +;9al!es. =owe9erJ a check o' the cell siOes in )oth cate ories o' +a+ers 3see Text ?25 4i4 not s! est that statistical +ower was s2stematicall2 hi her in st!4ies 'rom which 4ata were share4. The association )etween re+ortin errors an4 sharin o' 4ata a'ter res!lts are +!)lishe4 ma2 also re'lect 4i''erences in the ri or with which researchers mana e their 4ata. 8i oro!sl2 workin researchers ma2 sim+l2 commit 'ewer re+ortin errors )eca!se the2 mana e an4 archi9e their 4ata more 4ili entl2. " recent s!r9e2 amon 192 D!tch +s2cholo ical researchers hi hli hte4 a rather +oor +ractice o' 4ata archi9in in +s2cholo 2 I:0L. $hen aske4 whether the2 archi9e4 their research 4ataJ onl2 a thir4 o' the +s2cholo ists res+on4e4 +ositi9el2. This is remarka)le in li ht o' !i4elines o' the "<" I11L that sti+!late that 4ata sho!l4 )e retaine4 a minim!m o' 'i9e 2ears a'ter +!)lication o' the st!42. /9en amon those +s2cholo ists who in4icate4 that the2 YYarchi9eTT their 4ataJ most 4i4 not 'ollow +ro+er archi9in stan4ar4s 3e. .J )2 kee+in co4e )ooks an4 writin meta;4ata I:AL5J )!t sim+l2 store4 4ata on their own 3c!rrent5 com+!ter 3:2F5J on CDs/DVDs 316F5J or on the shel' 320F5. =a+haOar4 A / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

4ata mana ement is 4oc!mente4 in a n!m)er o' scienti'ic 'iel4s I:AJ:6J:9LJ ma2 res!lt in errors in anal2Oin an4 re+ortin o' res!ltsJ an4 o)9io!sl2 im+e4es the sharin o' 4ata a'ter res!lts are +!)lishe4. 8e ar4less o' the !n4erl2in +rocessesJ the res!lts on the )asis o' the c!rrent +a+ers im+l2 that it is most 4i''ic!lt to 9eri'2 +!)lishe4 statistical res!lts when these are contentio!s. $e 'oc!se4 here on N=?T within two +s2cholo 2 Po!rnals an4 so it is4esira)le to re+licate o!r res!lts in other 'iel4s an4 in the context o' alternati9e statistical a++roaches. =owe9erJ it is likel2 thatsimilar +ro)lems +la2 a role in the wi4es+rea4 rel!ctance to share 4ata in other scienti'ic 'iel4s I1:J1.J1>J10J1AJ16J19J20L. Beca!se existin !i4elines on 4ata sharin o''er little +romise 'or im+ro9ement I.0LJ +ro ress in +s2cholo ical science an4 relate4 'iel4s wo!l4 )ene'it 'rom ha9in research 4ata itsel' )e +art o' the +rocess o' re+lication I1>J10LJ nota)l2 )2 the esta)lishment )2 Po!rnalsJ +ro'essional or aniOationsJ an4 rantin )o4ies o' man4ator2 4ata archi9in +olicies. %ore strin ent +olicies concernin 4ata archi9in will not onl2 'acilitate 9eri'ication o' anal2ses an4 corrections o' the scienti'ic recor4J )!t also im+ro9e the M!alit2 o' re+ortin o' statistical res!lts. Chan in +olicies reM!ire )etter e4!cational trainin in4ata mana ement an4 4ata archi9in J which is c!rrentl2 s!)o+timal in man2 'iel4s I:0J:AJ:6J:9L. On the other han4Jtechnical ca+a)ilities 'or stora e are alrea42 a9aila)le. For instanceJ se9eral trial re isters in the me4ical sciences 3like clinicaltrials. o95 ena)le stora e o' research 4ata. 8i oro!s archi9in o' 4ata in9ol9es 4oc!mentation o' 9aria)lesJ meta;4ataJ sa9in 4ata 'iles in 'ormats that are ro)!st 3e. .J "?C** 'iles5J an4 s!)mittin 'iles to re+ositories that alrea42 reM!ire these stan4ar4s. Best +ractices in con4!ctin anal2ses an4 re+ortin statistical res!lts in9ol9eJ 'or instanceJ that all co;a!thors hol4 co+ies o' the 4ataJ an4 that at least two o' the a!thors in4e+en4entl2 r!n all the anal2ses 3as we 4i4 in this st!425. ?!ch 4o!)le;checks an4 the +ossi)ilit2 'or others to in4e+en4entl2 9eri'2 res!lts later sho!l4 o a lon wa2 in 4ealin with h!man 'actors in the con4!ct o' statistical anal2ses an4 the re+ortin o' res!lts.

6 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

2NC O/V Framework

2NC
T8/"T F8"%/$O8K 7*K/ T 1ND/8 CO%</T*N& *NT/8<8/T"T*ON? D/B"T/ ?=O17D ="V/ ?T8ON& D"T"J T=/E DONHT %//T *TJ "ND O18 ?T"ND"8D? "8/ %O8/ /D1C"T*ON"7 ; *T? " VOT/8 TO /?T"B7*?= <8/C/D/NT "ND B/C"1?/ <8/?1%<T*ON *? N/&"T*V/.

9 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

2NC Kickin O!t

$/H8/ NOT &O*N& FO8 D"T"J DONHT "77O$ 1N<8/D*CT"B7/ C8O??; "<<7*C"T*ON?
1.

T=/E ?T*77 7*NK Q/77N/8 "ND 8O?/K*ND ?"E T=/E N/*T=/8 /G<7*C*T C*T/ T=/ %/T=ODO7O&*/?J B"CK&8O1NDJ "ND 8/?17T? OF T=/*8 /G</8*%/NT? NO8 1?/ " D1"NT*T"T*V/ %/T=ODO7O&E TO C1?T*FE T=/ <7"NJ %/"N? T=/E 7/"D TO B"D *D/O7O&*C"7 /%<*8*C*?%J NOT &OOD /%<*8*C*?%. DO/?NHT "<<7E TO O18 KH? D"T" ON7E "<<7*/? TO <8/D*CT*ON?J NOT V"71/? B/C"1?/ T=/E "8/ *N=/8/NT7E 1ND1"NT*F*"B7/ "ND NO ?T"T? /G*?T FO8 $=E EO18 7*F/ %"TT/8? COND*T*ON"7*TE %/"N? $/ ?=O17D &/T TO K*CK $O87D? ?1C= "? T=/ F8"%/$O8K FO8 N/&"T*V/ F7/G*B*7*TE T"K*N& "$"E "NE 8/"?ON $=E EO1 ?=O17D <8/F/8/NC/ D"T" *T? NO D*FF/8/NT T="N K*CK*N& O1T OF OF T. $/ %//T T=/*8 /%<*8*C*?% ?T"ND"8D TOO O18 /V C*T/? C1?T "? %1C= *F NOT %O8/ D"T" T="N T=/% %/"N? *T? *%<O??*B7/ TO D*?T*N&1*?= O8 $/*&= (%O8/ D"T",

2.

:.

..

10 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

"T# $% &eneric
2NC
1. T=/E DONHT %//T O18 *NT/8< ; 8O?/K*ND 09 C8/"T/? " T=8// <8ON& T/?T TO D/T/8%*N/ $=/T=/8 T=/E ="V/ ?T8ON& D"T"

"5 ?"%<7/ ?*Q/ "1T=O8? %1?T 7OOK "T T=/ /NT*8/J "7B/*T $/*&=T/D =*?TO8E OF "N /V/NTJ NOT " D*?TO8T/D ?7*C/ OF *T. T=/*8 "1T=O8? C*T/ /*T=/8 "N"7O&*/?J ?*N&7/ O1T7*/8?J O8 OB?C18/ =*?TO8E T=*? *? C=/88E<*CK*N& *NO8D/8 TO %"K/? F"7?/ *NF/8/NC/?. 3 5T=/ C7O?/?T T=/E $*77 &/T *? /V T="T C*T/? " ="NDF17 OF /G"%<7/?J B1T T="T ?T*77 *&NO8/? " V"?T7E 7"8&/ N1%B/8 OF CO1NT/8/G"%<7/?. B5 /G<7*C*T C*T"T*ON T=/ D"T" %1?T B/ *NF8ONT OF 1? *N T=*? D/B"T/ *N O8D/8 TO "CT1"77E ="V/ D/B"T/ OV/8 T=/ D"T" "T ="ND. 3 5T=/E 8/F1?/ TO "CT1"77E ?=O$ 1? T=/ D"T" T=/E <O*NT TO V"CO1? &/N/8"7*Q"T*ON? O8 D1OT/? BE T=/*8 "1T=O8 ?$/"8*N& T=/ (D"T" $"? ON T=/ N/GT <"&/, ; TO ?"E $/ ?=O17D ="V/ 8/?/"8C=/D T=/*8 "FF ON O18 O$N T*%/ TO F*ND T=/*8 D"T" FO8 T=/% *? "K*N TO " $8ON& FO81% "8&1%/NT T="T ON7E ?/8V/? TO /NCO18"&/ ?1</8F*C*"7 D/B"T/ OV/8 %/"N*N&7/??J *NF*N*T/7E 8/V/8?*B7/ C7"*%? $*T=O1T "NE 8/&"8D TO T=/ T81T=. C5 D1"NT*F*"B7/ %/T=OD T=/ "FF %1?T C8/"T/ =E<OT/=/?*? T="T C"N B/ D1"NT*T"T*V/7E T/?T/D T=8O1&= /*T=/8 N"T18"7 /G</8*%/NT? O8 8/&8/??*ON? OF <"?T D"T" TO <8OV/ "DV"NT"&/ "ND ?O7V/NCE <8/D*CT*ON? T=*? *? N/C/??"8E TO KNO$ T=/ ?/V/8*TE OF T=/ <8OB7/%J "ND T=/ <8OB"B*7*TE OF ?O7V/NCEJ "ND TO <8*O8*T*Q/ CO%</T*T*N& ?O71T*ON?. 3 5T=/E %"E ="V/ C"8D? T="T ?1&&/?T T=/ <7"N CO17D B/ &OOD B1T T=/8/ *? NO D1"N*F*C"T*ON OF T=/ 8*?K/B/N/F*T O8 /G<7*CT $/*&=*N& OF T=/% *N "NE $"E *N T=/ 1"CJ NO8 D1"NT*F*C"T*ON OF ?O7V/NCE V/81? "7T/8N"T*V/ C"1?/?. 2. /V/N *F T=/E %//T ON/ OF T=/?/ 8/D1*8/%/NT?J T=/E DONHT %//T T=/ OT=/8 T$O /N?18*N& <OO8 <8/D*CT*ON?. "ND /V/N *F " ?*N&7/ C"8D %//T? "77 T=8//J *T ON7E <8OV/? " T*NE <"8T OF T=/ 7O&*C C="*N T="T ?T"8T? F8O% N1C7/"8 <O7*CEJ TO T=/ <7"N "8/"J TO T=/ ?C/N"8*OJ TO /?C"7"T*ONJ T=/N F*N"77E "/GT*NCT*ON %*??*N& " ?*N&7/ ON/ OF T=/?/ T=8O$? " $8/NC= *N T=/ /NT*8/ 1"C B/C"1?/ *T? " 100F T"K/O1T 8/%/%B/8 Q/77N/8 /?T"B7*?=/? <8/?1%<T*ON *? ON T=/% TO <8OV/ T=/E %//T DONHT DO $O8K O8 F*ND T=/*8 D"T" FO8 T=/% B/C"1?/ T="T ON7E /NCO18"&/? <OO8 /D1C"T*ON T=/?/ B"D D"T" D/B"T/? $*77 OB?C18/ &OOD D"T" ON/? <8/C*?7/E B/C"1?/ *T? /"?*/8 "ND *? &*V/N 8O1&=7E /D1"7 $/*&=T

:.

8e!ter 60 I<eter 8e!ter ?enior /conomist in the $ashin ton O''ice o' the 8an4 Cor+oration.T=/ ?OC*"7 CO?T? OF T=/ D/%"ND FO8 D1"NT*F*C"T*ON Co!rnal o' <olic2 "nal2sis an4 %ana ement Vol!me > *ss!e .J <a es 60A ; 612L IctL B!t in other areas o' social +olic2J the ex+ert comm!nit2 is smallJ not M!antitati9e or ill;in'orme4. The a49ocates o'ten make initial estimates o' the scale o' a +ro)lem. ?!ch n!m)ers 'reM!entl2 ha9e o)sc!re ori ins in 4ata 4rawn 'rom con'i4ential or +ro+rietar2 so!rces with 9a !e 4escri+tions o'
how the 4ata were !se4. The re+ort o' the 19A0 Commission on <ro4!ct ?a'et2J which anno!nce4 20 million +ro4!ct;ca!se4 inP!riesJ is a oo4 exam+leR it is 4i''ic!lt to 4etermine how these n!m)ers were +ro4!ce4 or what the2 reall2 meas!re.10 "nother instance was the estimate o' h! e re9en!es enerate4 )2 ille al 4r! transactionsJ some Z60;100 )illion in 1960 accor4in to the National Narcotics *ntelli ence Cons!mers Committee.K These n!m)ers hel+e4 '!el the 4eman4 'or enormo!s increases in 'e4eral reso!rces 'or com)attin 4r! tra''ic. <recisel2 )eca!se these n!m)ers are the 'irst estimates o' what;e9er the2 +!r+ort to meas!reJ the2 o'ten achie9e reat +rominence. Con ressional hearin s will cite themJ news+a+ers will re;+ort themR their +ro+o!n4ers an4 a49ocates will o)tain at least 'leetin 'ameJ i' not lastin 'ort!ne. *' the n!m)ers come 'rom a enciesJ the2 will hel+ those a encies increase their share o' the )!4 et.The

)a4 estimates are +ro4!ce4 at least +artl2 )eca!se oo4 estimates are so 4i''ic!lt to make in these areas. *t is eas2 to +oint to the 'ailin s o' the 'irst Kmeas!rementK )!t o'ten har4 to +ro;4!ce a con9incin alternati9e. 7aterJ more serio!s researchers 4isclose the weaknesses o' their 4ata so!rces an4 the ass!m+tions reM!ire4 to enerate the estimates an4 conseM!entl2 are criticiOe4 )2 the a49ocates o' the earlier 'i !re. *n this case we ha9e a minor 9ariation on the stan4ar4 &reshamHs law# the )a4 )!t o)sc!re will 4ri9e o!t 3or +re9ent the creation o'5 the serio!s )!t ex+licit. *n the case o' 4r! re9en!es there is a now a small critical literat!reHH )!t the 4i''ic!lt2 o' +ro4!cin )etter estimates has limite4 the e''icac2 o' that criticism.

11 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# K "''s
1NC
C8*T*D1/ D/B"T/8? 8/<7"C/ *N?T81%/NT"77E /FF/CT*V/ "CT*ON $*T= *D/O7O&*C"7 %E?T*F*C"T*ON $=/N T=/E 8"C/ TO (*T? "77 B/C"1?/ OF C"<*T"7;8"C/;?/G;N/O;7*B/8"7; "&/ N1C7/"8 ;O8*/NT"7 ; O8 F*77 *N T=/ B7"NK;*?%, .T=/ 8/?17T *? T="T D1/?T*ON? OF %"T/8*"7 /G*?T/NC/ ./>T= OF T=/ <7"N/T F"C/ /V/8ED"E &/T *&NO8/D *N F"VO8 OF <O7*T*C"7 8/?*&N"T*ON F8"%/D "? (D//< <=*7O?O<=*C"7 T=O1&=T.,
Clo!4J Decem)er 2000 3<ro'essor o' Comm!nication ?t!4ies at Texas. Comm!nication an4 Critical/C!lt!ral ?t!4ies5 This ill!sor2 worl4 resem)les that o' earl2;21st;cent!r2 ca+italismJ where +eo+le o to work an4 en a e in all the acti9ities o' 4ail2 li'e. %or+he!s ex+oses Neo to the lie 3or ex+oses the lie to Neo5 o' his existence# *n the real worl4 o!tsi4e o' the %atrixJ +eo+leTs +h2sical )o4ies ser9e as or anic )atteries 'or sentient machines while their 4isem)o4ie4 conscio!snesses occ!+2 YYthe %atrix.TT /x+ose4 to what %or+he!s names YYthe 4esert o' the realJTT Neo realiOes that what he tho! ht was real was ill!sionR e9ent!all2 he commits himsel' to resistance a ainst the machines on )ehal' o' a ca+ti9e h!manit2. B2 the en4 o' the %atrix trilo 2J howe9erJ ill!sion has )l!rre4 with realit2J an4 NeoTs resistance t!rns o!t to )e 'oll2 in an inesca+a)le worl4 o' 4isc!rsi9e 4isci+line. *n the more o+timistic 'irst 'ilmJ NeoTs trans'ormation 'rom ni httime re)el to '!ll;time re9ol!tionar2 reM!ires his knowle4 e that the realit2 o' h!man s!)P! ation contra4icts what is YYin the tr!eTT in the %atrix. &!i4e4 )2 %or+he!sJ he ex+eriences the real worl4 marke4 )2 4e+ri9ationJ str! leJ an4 the li'e; s!ckin ex+loitation )2 the machines. =e chooses to remain in this realit2 o' 4an er an4 4es+erationJ )eca!se knowin what is real an4 what is not is the con4ition o' +ossi)ilit2 'or his 'ree4om. The ca+acit2J ill!strate4 in the 'ilmsJ to 4istin !ish )etween i4eolo ical m2sti'ication an4 real relations o' +ower is the s!)Pect o' this article. O' necessit2J attention to the 'ilms here is c!rtaile4 in 'a9or o' m2 main +!r+oseJ namel2 to narrate the traPector2 o' contem+orar2 theor2 thro! h the narrati9e o' the 'ilmsJ rather than to inter+ret the 'ilms thro! h the lens o' the theories. The 'ilms as meton2m re+resent an !ncann2 an4 co ent com+ression o' the arc o' critical theor2 o9er the last se9eral 4eca4es. "s the 8!ssian re9ol!tionar2 7eon Trotsk2 ar !e4 in his writin s on literat!re an4 artJ c!lt!ral works 3incl!4in aca4emic theories5 are )o!n4 to the historical con4itions o' their +ro4!ctionR we m!st atten4 to their collecti9e in'l!ence not as the 9an !ar4 o' social chan e )!t as i4eolo ies that ma2 le itimate an4 s!stain existin social relations. Taken to etherJ the 'ilms an4 contem+orar2 critical c!lt!ral an4 comm!nication theor2 alike emer e o!t o' an historical moment o' +olitical an4 intellect!al +essimism on the 7e't an4 ex+ress 4ee+ ske+ticism a)o!t the +ossi)ilit2 o' mo)iliOin +eo+le a ainst real o++ression. Both narrati9esJ one in +o+!lar c!lt!re an4 one in the aca4em2J risk +er+et!atin an i4eolo 2 o' resi nation to existin social relations 4is !ise4 as critiM!e an4 resistance. The 'ilms o''er two 9ersions o' the real. One is an ex+eriential realJ in which knowle4 e o' the material )ase o' o++ression contra m2sti'ication enerates critical insi ht an4 the ca+acit2 'or action. The 'ilm also in9okes a 7acanian 8ealJ in which the +s2chic resi4!e o' the lack o' wholeness in the ?2m)olic an4 the ex+erience o' tra!ma lea9e +ersons/s!)Pects !neas2. *n the 'irst 'ilmJ 'or exam+leJ Neo ex+eriences 9a !e !nease with his 4ail2 li'e in the %atrix an4 )e ins to YYhackTT into the com+!ter; 4ri9en s2stem. $hile he remains in the s2m)olic worl4 o' the %atrixJ he is inca+a)le o' 'i htin it in a s2stematic wa2J )eca!se his s!s+icions are M!ite literall2 ro!n4less !ntil he is !n+l! e4 'rom i4eolo 2. *n contrast to a 7acanian +ers+ecti9eJ this article 4e'ines realit2 as the site o' li9e4 ex+erienceJ the +lace where the em)o4ie4 ex+erience o' la)or enerates contra; 4ictions with re ar4 to knowle4 e an4 conscio!sness. *n ca+italismJ the 4i9ision o' societ2 into classes an4 the 4i9er ent ex+eriences o' mem)ers o' those classes are real. This 4e'inition o' the real is stan4+oint;)ase4J restin on '!n4amental an4 4i9er ent interests in a +artic!lar societ2. %arxists are concerne4 with e+istemolo 2J M!estions o' what is tr!e an4 what is 'alse. B!t e+istemolo ical M!estions alwa2s )e the ontolo ical# tr!e or 'alse to what or whomW "ltho! h there is no +ermanentJ essentialJ or !ni9ersall2 ex+erience4 realit2J the cate or2 o' realit2 is necessar2 to +olitical P!4 ment e9en as it 'in4s intelli i)ilit2J conscio!s meanin J an4 strate ic im+ort in 4isco!rse. "s the %arxist theorist &eor 7!k[cs ex+lainsJ li9e4 ex+erience is the 4ialectical s+rin )oar4 'or the +ro4!ction o' o++ositional tr!th an4 action. No matter how com+lex the +rocessJ 4ialectical materialism asksJ M!ite sim+l2J 'or a YYrealit2 testTT o' +olitical 4isco!rses an4 i4eolo ies 'rom the stan4+oint o' or4inar2 +eo+le. $hile 'ilm an4 theor2 alike +roclaim the en4 o' an2 s!ch realit2J this article a49ances an ar !ment 'or a classical %arxist !n4erstan4in o' the rhetoricall2 me4iate4 relationshi+ )etween realit2 an4 conscio!sness. Classical %arxism a44resses the lac!na o' a enc2 in +oststr!ct!ralist an4 +ost;%arxist theor2 in wa2s that a9oi4 the +it'alls o' relati9ism an4 anti;h!manism. To the en4 o' !n4er; stan4in this +ro)lemJ the article 'irst s!r9e2s theoretical conce+tions o' realit2 an4 a enc2 in str!ct!ralist an4 +oststr!ct!ralist theor2 alon si4e their re+resentations in The %atrixJ %atrix# 8eloa4e4J an4 %atrix# 8e9ol!tions. $hile the 'irst %atrix 'ilm )e ins to artic!late a 4ialecticalJ intereste4J an4 soli4aristic 9ersion o' a enc2J this 9isionJ as in contem+orar2 theor2J 'alls )2 the wa2si4e as the heroes o' the stor2 concl!4e that there is no wa2 o!t o'

12 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

the %atrix. The 'ilms en a in l2 re+resent critical theor2Ts retreat 'rom notions o' tr!th an4 realit2 as so!rces o' a enc2J an4J as /llen %eiksins $oo4 an4 others ha9e ar !e4J 'rom class;)ase4 theor2 an4 +olitics. The secon4 maPor section o' the essa2 ex+lores the realist +hiloso+h2 o' classical %arxismJ +artic!larl2 the rhetoricall2 rich conce+ts o' real class interests 3rather than i4entities5 an4 soli4arit2 amon those who share real interests. These conce+ts +ro9i4e )ases 'or i4enti'ication an4 conPoint action across i4entit2 4i''erencesJ a9oi4in the tra+s o' i4entit2 essentialismJ anti;h!manismJ an4 na\9e in4i9i4!alism. *nterests an4 soli4arit2 are the )!il4in )locks o' a %arxist rhetoric an4 o' a real+olitik o' class !tterl2 necessar2 to challen in the o++ression an4 ex+loitation o' ca+italism to4a2. This +roPect has )een 4e9al!e4 an4 4ismisse4 in theories with anti; h!manist an4 nearl2 excl!si9el2 s2m)olic commitments that i9e awa2 the ro!n4 'or +olitical instr!mentalit2. /9en rhetorical theor2J ori inall2 the st!42 o' +ractical inter9entionist +oliticsJ has allowe4 a enc2 to wither awa2 in the sha4ow o' str!ct!ralism an4 relati9ism .

1: / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# (")sol!te *m+act Calc,---1NC

T=/ "FF C=/88E <*CK? T=/ 7*T/8"T18/ TO <8/?/NT ON7E ON/ ?*D/ OF T=/*8 "8& "ND <7"C/? T=/ "B?O71T/ B18D/N ON T=/ N/& TO 8/F1T/ *T T=*? *N"B*7*TE TO ?/7F;C8*T*C*Q/ *? $="T %"K/? T=/*8 <8/D*CT*ON? $O8T=7/?? "ND *? 8/?<ON?*B7/ FO8 T=/ C188/NT /CONO%*C 8/C/??*ON. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L T/T7OCK# * think the most im+ortant takeawa2 wo!l4 )e that the ex+erts areJ the2 think the2 know more than the2 4o. The2 were s2stematicall2 o9ercon'i4ent. ?ome ex+erts were reall2 massi9el2 o9ercon'i4ent. "n4 we are a)le to i4enti'2 those ex+erts )ase4 on some o' their characteristics o' their )elie' s2stem an4 their co niti9e st2leJ their thinkin st2le. D1BN/8# OK. ?o now weTre ettin into the nitt2; ritt2 o' what makes +eo+le +re4ict well or +re4ict +oorl2. $hat are the characteristics then o' a +oor +re4ictorW T/T7OCK# Do matism. D1BN/8# *t can )e s!mme4 !+ that easil2W T/T7OCK# * think so. * think an !nwillin ness to chan e oneTs min4 in a reasona)l2 timel2 wa2 in res+onse to new e9i4ence. tendency, when asked to e!plain one"s predictions, to generate only reasons that favor your preferred prediction and not to generate reasons opposed to it. D1BN/8# "n4 * !ess whatTs strikin to me an4 *T4 lo9e to hear what 2o! ha4 to sa2 a)o!t this is that itTs eas2 to +ro9i4e one wor4J +re4ictionJ to man2J man2J man2 4i''erent realms in li'e. B!t those realms all o+erate 9er2 4i''erentl2 V so +olitics is 4i''erent 'rom economicsJ an4 +re4ictin a s+orts o!tcome is 4i''erent than +re4ictin J 2o! knowJ an a ric!lt!ral o!tcome. *t seems that we 4onTt 4istin !ish so m!ch necessaril2 an4 that thereTs this mo4ern sense almost that an2thin can )e an4 sho!l4 )e a)le to )e +re4icte4. "m * kin4 o' ri ht on thatJ or noW T/T7OCK# * think thereTs a reat 4eal o' tr!th to that. * think it is 9er2 !se'!l in talkin a)o!t the +re4icta)ilit2 o' the mo4ern worl4 to 4istin !ish those as+ects o' the worl4 that show a reat 4eal o' linear re !larit2 an4 those +arts o' the worl4 that seems to )e 4ri9en )2 com+lex s2stems that are 4eci4e4l2 nonlinear an4 4eci4e4l2 4i''ic!lt i' not im+ossi)le to +re4ict. D1BN/8# Talk to me a)o!t a 'ew realms that enerall2 are 9er2J 9er2 har4 to +re4ictJ an4 a 'ew realms that enerall2 are m!ch easier. T/T7OCK# <re4ictin ?can4ina9ian +olitics is a lot easier than +re4ictin %i44le /astern +olitics. D1BN/8# EesJ that was the 'irst one that came to m2 min4 tooX "ll ri htJ )!t kee+ oin . T/T7OCK# The thin a)o!t the ra4icall2 !n+re4icta)le en9ironments is that the2 o'ten a++ear 'or lon +erio4s o' time to )e +re4icta)le. ?oJ 'or exam+leJ i' 2o! ha4 )een a +olitical 'orecaster +re4ictin re ime lon e9it2 in the %i44le /astJ 2o! wo!l4 ha9e 4one extremel2 well +re4ictin in / 2+t that %!)arak wo!l4 contin!e to )e the +resi4ent o' / 2+t 2ear a'ter 2ear a'ter 2ear in m!ch the same wa2 that i' 2o! ha4 )een a ?o9ietolo ist 2o! wo!l4 ha9e 4one 9er2 well in the BreOhne9 era +re4ictin contin!it2. ThereTs an a+horism * M!ote in the (/x+ert <olitical C!4 ment, )ook 'rom Karl %arx. *Tm o)9io!sl2 not a %arxist )!t itTs a )ea!ti'!l a+horism that he ha4 which was thatJ ($hen the train o' histor2 hits a c!r9eJ the intellect!als 'all o''., C"8D CONT*N1/ D1BN/8# "ll ri htJ so Coe <r!sacki +ro)a)l2 canTt )e )o! ht. "n4 the 1?D" is enerall2 consi4ere4 to 4o a +rett2 oo4 Po) with cro+ 'orecasts. B!t# look how har4 the a enc2 has to workJ meas!rin corn 'iel4s row )2 rowJ oin )ack to look 'or animal loss an4 har9est loss. "n4 stillJ its +roPectionJ which is lookin onl2 a 'ew months into the '!t!reJ can et thrown totall2 o!t o' whack )2 a little stretch o' hotJ 4r2 weather. That 4r2 s+ell was essentiall2 a ran4om e9entJ kin4 o' like Tom Bra42Ts knee ettin smashe4. * hate to tell 2o! this )!t the '!t!re is '!ll o' ran4om e9ents. ThatTs wh2 itTs so har4 to +re4ict. ThatTs wh2 it can )e scar2. Do we know thisW O' co!rse we know it. Do we )elie9e itW %mmmm. ?ome scholars sa2 that o!r nee4 'or +re4iction is ettin worse V orJ more acc!ratel2J that we et more !+set now when the '!t!re s!r+rises !s. "'ter allJ as the worl4 )ecomes more rational an4 ro!tiniOe4J we o'ten know what to ex+ect. * can et a Bi %ac not onl2 in New Eork )!t in BeiPin J too V an4 the2Tll taste +rett2 m!ch the same. ?o when 2o!Tre !se4 to thatJ an4 when thin s 4onTt o as ex+ecte4 V watch o!t. O!r s+ecies has )een tr2in to 'oretell the '!t!re 'ore9er. Oracles an4 oat entrails an4 roosters +eckin the 4irt. The ol4est reli io!s texts are 'ille4 with +re4iction. * meanJ look at the a'terli'eX $hat is that i' not a +re4iction o' the '!t!reW " +re4iction thatJ as 'ar as * can tellJ can ne9er )e cate oricall2 re'!te4 or con'irme4. " +re4iction so com+ellin that it remains all these 2ears later a conce+t aro!n4 which )illions o' +eo+le or aniOe their li9es. ?o what 4o 2o! see when 2o! aOe into the '!t!reW " 2awnin chasm o' ran4om e9ents V or 4o 2o! look 'or a neat +atternJ e9en i' no s!ch +attern existsW Nassim T"7/B# *tTs m!ch more costl2 'or someone to not 4etect a +attern.

1. / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

D1BN/8# ThatTs Nassim Tale)J the a!thor o' (Foole4 B2 8an4omness, an4 (The Black ?wan., T"7/B# *tTs m!ch costlier 'or !s V as a raceJ to make the mistake o' not seein a leo+ar4 than ha9in the ill!sion o' +attern an4 ima inin a leo+ar4 where there is none. "n4 that errorJ in other wor4sJ mistakin the non;ran4om 'or the ran4omJ which is what * call the (one;wa2 )ias., Now that )ias works extremel2 wellJ )eca!se whatTs the )i 4eal o' ettin o!t o' tro!)leW *tTs not costin 2o! an2thin . B!t in the mo4ern worl4J it is not M!ite harmless. *ll!sions o' certaint2 makes 2o! think that thin s that ha9enTt exhi)ite4 riskJ 'or exam+le the stock marketJ are riskless. $e ha9e the t!rke2 +ro)lem V the )!tcher 'ee4s the t!rke2 'or a certain n!m)er o' 4a2sJ an4 then the t!rke2 ima ines this is +ermanent. C"8D CONT*N1N/? D1BN/8# =ow 4oes that sel';criticism come into +la2 an4 act!all2 chan e the co!rse o' the +re4ictionW T/T7OCK# $ellJ one sign that you"re capable of constructive self#criticism is that you"re not dumbfounded by the question$ %hat would it take to convince you you"re wrong& 'f you can"t answer that question you can take that as a warning sign.

1> / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# /xtinction *m+acts

1NC
/GT8/%/ <8/D*CT*ON? 7*K/ /GT*NCT*ON O8 8OOT C"1?/ "8/ ?T"T*?T*C"77E $O8T=7/?? "ND CO%<"8"T*V/7E 7/?? "CC18"T/ T="N NON;/GT8/%/ <8/D*CT*ON?. T=*? ?/N?"T*ON"7*?% ON7E C8O$D? O1T &OOD <8/D*CT*ON?. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L D1BN/8# Christina Fan J like <hili+ TetlockJ is 'ascinate4 with +re4iction# F"N&# $ellJ * !ess enerall2 'orecastin a)o!t an2thin J a)o!t technolo 2J a)o!t a +ro4!ctJ whether it will )e s!ccess'!lJ a)o!t whether an i4eaJ a 9ent!re i4ea co!l4 take o''J a lot o' thin sJ not P!st economic )!t also )!siness in eneral. D1BN/8# Fan wasnTt intereste4 in P!st 2o!r street;le9el +re4ictionsJ tho! h. ?he wante4 to know a)o!t the Bi Do sJ the +eo+le who make )ol4 economic +re4ictions that carr2 +rice ta s in the man2 millions or e9en )illions o' 4ollars. "lon with a 'ellow researcherJ Cerker DenrellJ Fan athere4 4ata 'rom the $all ?treet Co!rnalTs ?!r9e2 o' /conomic Forecasts. /9er2 six monthsJ the +a+er aske4 a)o!t >0 to+ economists to +re4ict a set o' macroeconomic n!m)ers V !nem+lo2mentJ in'lationJ ross national +ro4!ctJ thin s like that. Fan a!4ite4 se9en consec!ti9e s!r9e2sJ with an e2e towar4 a +artic!lar M!estion# when someone correctl2 +re4icts an extreme e9ent V a market crashJ ma2)eJ or a s!44en s+ike in in'lation V what 4oes that sa2 a)o!t his o9erall 'orecastin a)ilit2W F"N&# *n the $all ?treet Co!rnal s!r9e2 if you look at the e!treme outcomes, either e!tremely bad outcomes and e!tremely good outcomes, you see that those people who correctly predicted either e!tremely good or e!tremely bad outcomes, they (a)re likely to have overall lower level of accuracy. *n other wor4sJ they"re doing poorer in general. ?CD N"88# 1h;oh. Eo! catchin thisW F"N&# Those +eo+le who ha++en to +re4ict acc!ratel2 the extreme e9entsJ we also look at theirthe2 ha++en to also ha9e a lower o9erall le9el o' acc!rac2. D1BN/8# ?o * can )e ri ht on the )i one )!t i' *Tm ri ht on the )i one * enerall2 will ten4 to )e more o'ten wron than the a9era e +erson. F"N&# On a9era e D1BN/8# On a9era e. F"N&# "cross e9er24a2 +re4ictions as well. "n4 o!r research s! ests that 'or someone who has s!ccess'!ll2 +re4icte4 those e9entsJ we are oin to +re4ict that the2 are not likel2 to re+eat their s!ccess 9er2 o'ten. *n other wor4sJ their o9erall ca+a)ilit2 is likel2 to )e not as im+ressi9e as their a++arent s!ccess seems to )e. D1BN/8# ?o the +eo+le who make )i J )ol4J correct +re4ictions are in eneral worse than a9era e at +re4ictin the economic '!t!re. NowJ wh2 is this a +ro)lemW %a2)e the2Tre P!st like home;r!n hitters V 2TknowJ a lot o' strikeo!ts )!t a lot o' +ower too. "ll ri htJ *Tll tell 2o! wh2 itTs a +ro)lem. "ct!all2J *Tll ha9e ?te9e 7e9itt tell 2o!. 7/V*TT# The incentives for prediction makers are to make either cataclysmic or utopian predictions, ri htW *ecause you don"t get attention if ' say that what"s going to happen tomorrow is e!actly as what"s going to happen todayS D1BN/8# Eo! 4onTt et on TV. 7/V*TT# * 4onTt et on TV. *' it ha++ens to come tr!eJ who caresW * 4onTt et an2 cre4it 'or it comin tr!e either. D1BN/8# ThereTs a stron incenti9e to make extreme +re4ictionsR )eca!seJ serio!sl2J who t!nes in to hear some !2 sa2 that (Next 2ear will )e +rett2 m!ch like last 2ear,W "n4 once 2o! ha9e )een ri ht on an extreme 'orecast V letTs sa2 2o! +re4icte4 the 2006 market crash an4 the &reat 8ecession V e9en i' 2o! were +re4ictin it e9er2 2earJ like ?te9e 7e9ittTs mother V 2o!Tll still )e known as The &!2 $ho Calle4 the Bi One. "n4 e9en i' all 2o!r 'ollow!+ +re4ictions are wron J 2o! still ot the Bi One ri ht. 7ike Coe Namath. "ll ri htJ look. <re4ictin the econom2W <re4ictin the +olitical '!t!reW Those are har4. Those are )i J com+lex s2stems with lots o' mo9in +arts. ?o how a)o!t 'oot)allW *' 2o!Tre an NF7 ex+ertJ how har4 can it )e to 'orecastJ sa2J who the )est 'oot)all teams will )e in a i9en 2earW $e aske4 Freakonomics researcher =a2es Da9en+ort to r!n the n!m)ers 'or !s# C"8D CONT*N1/? D"V/N<O8T# * canTt 4o that. ThereTs a l!ck 'actor in9ol9e4 in all o' these +re4ictions. For exam+leJ i' 2o! +ick the <atriots in 2006 an4 Tom Bra42 ets inP!re4J an4 the2 4ro+ o!t o' the +la2o''sJ thereTs 9er2 little 2o! can 4o to +re4ict that. ?o inP!ries will mess with +re4iction all the time. "n4 other t!rno9er rates in 'oot)all that are sort o' !n+re4icta)le. ?o thereTs a l!ck 'actor to all o' this.

10 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

D1BN/8# ?o whether itTs 'oot)all ex+erts callin ?!n4a2Ts ame or economists 'orecastin the econom2J or +olitical +!n4its lookin 'or the next re9ol!tionJ weTre talkin a)o!t acc!rac2 rates that )arel2 )eat a coin toss. B!t ma2)e all these !2s 4eser9e a )reak. %a2)e itTs P!st inherentl2 har4 to +re4ict the '!t!re o' other h!man )ein s. The2Tre so mallea)leR so !n+re4icta)leX ?o how a)o!t a +re4iction where h!man )ein s are inci4ental to the main actionW

1A / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# 1ncertaint2 3(co!l4,5

1NC
T=/ D*?C1NT B/T$//N T=/*8 T"&? "ND C"8D? <8OV/ T=/ 7*NK /G</8T? ?"E? $O8D? 7*K/ (CO17D, O8 (%*&=T, $=*C= "8/ T=/N "??1%/D TO %/"N ($O17D, BE D/B"T/8? T=*? CONF7"T*ON /V*D/NT *N T=/ "FF? (8*?K OF, C"7C171? ON7E C"1?/? B"D <8/D*CT*ON? BE C8O$D*N& O1T T=/ &OOD ON/?. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L I?O1ND %ONT"&/ OF CO17D?L D1BN/8# There"s a punditocracy out there, a class of people who predict ad nauseam, often on television. They can be pretty good at making their predictions tough to audit. T/T7OCK# *tTs the art o' a++earin to o o!t on a lim) witho!t act!all2 oin o!t on a lim). For exam+leJ the wor4 (co!l4J, somethin (co!l4, ha++enJ the room 2o! ha++en to )e sittin in co!l4 )e str!ck )2 a meteor in the next 2: secon4s. That makes +er'ect senseJ )!t the +ro)a)ilit2 o' co!rse is +oint OeroJ OeroJ OeroJ OeroJ et ceteraJ one. *tTs not OeroJ )!t itTs extremel2 low. *n 'actJ the wor4 (co!l4J, the +ossi)le meanin s +eo+le attach to it ran e 'rom a 0.01 to a .0J which co9ers more than hal' the +ro)a)ilit2 scale ri ht there. D1BN/8# 7ookJ no)o42 likes a weasel. ?o more than 20 2ears a oJ Tetlock set o!t to con4!ct one o' the lar est em+irical st!4iesJ e9erJ o' +re4ictions. =e chose to 'oc!s on +re4ictions a)o!t +olitical 4e9elo+ments aro!n4 the worl4. =e enliste4 some o' the worl4Ts 'oremost ex+erts V the kin4 o' 9er2 smart +eo+le who ha9e written 4e'initi9e )ooksJ who show !+ on CNN or on the TimesTs o+;e4 +a e.

16 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# Certaint2 3(will,5

1NC
T=/ "FFH? <8/D*CT*ON? "8/ =/D&/=O&? T=/E 8//K OF /GC/??*V/ CONF*D/NC/ B/C"1?/ OF T=/*8 8/D1CT*ON TO ?*%<7/J "B?O71T*?TJ ?O1ND B*T/?. T=*? FOG;N/$? "<<8O"C= TO <8/D*CT*ON? *? $=E "1T=O8? 7*K/ C="7KO "ND NED1*?T ON#$ "<</"8 *N D/B"T/ "ND C8/"T/ B"D <8/D*CT*ON? *N D/B"T/. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L D1BN/8# *n his st!42J Tetlock 'o!n4 that one 'actor was more im+ortant than an2 other in someoneTs +re4icti9e a)ilit2# co niti9e st2le. Eo! know the stor2 a)o!t the 'ox an4 the he4 eho W T/T7OCK# *saiah Berlin tells !s that the M!otation comes 'rom the &reek warrior +oet "rchilich!s 2J>00 2ears a o. "n4 the ro! h translation was the 'ox knows man2 thin s )!t the he4 eho knows one )i thin . D1BN/8# ?oJ talk to me a)o!t what the 'oxes 4o as +re4ictors an4 what the he4 eho s 4o as +re4ictors. T/T7OCK# ?!re. The 'oxes ten4 to ha9e a rather eclecticJ o++ort!nistic a++roach to 'orecastin . The2Tre 9er2 +ra matic. " 'amo!s a+horism )2 Den Giao+in was he (4i4nTt care i' the cat was white or )lack as lon as it ca! ht mice., "n4 * think the attit!4e o' man2 'oxes is the2 reall2 4i4nTt care whether i4eas came 'rom the le't or the ri htJ the2 ten4e4 to 4e+lo2 them rather 'lexi)l2 in 4eri9in +re4ictions. ?o the2 o'ten )orrowe4 i4eas across schools o' tho! ht that he4 eho s 9iewe4 as more sacrosanct. There are man2 s!)s+ecies o' he4 eho . B!t what the2 ha9e in common is a ten4enc2 to a++roach 'orecastin as a 4e4!cti9eJ to+;4own exercise. The2 start o'' with some a)stract +rinci+lesJ an4 the2 a++l2 those a)stract +rinci+les to mess2J real;worl4 sit!ationsJ an4 the 'it is o'ten 4eci4e4l2 im+er'ect. D1BN/8# ?o 'oxes ten4 to )e less 4o matic than he4 eho sJ which makes them )etter +re4ictors. B!tJ i' 2o! ha4 to !essJ who 4o 2o! think more likel2 to show !+ TV or in an o+;e4 col!mnJ the +ra maticJ n!ance4 'ox or the know;it;all he4 eho W I?O1ND %ONT"&/L D1BN/8# Eo! ot itX T/T7OCK# =e4 eho sJ * thinkJ are more likel2 to o''er M!ota)le so!n4 )itesJ whereas 'oxes are more likel2 to o''er rather com+lexJ ca9eat;la4en so!n4 )ites. The2Tre not so!n4 )ites an2more i' the2Tre com+lex an4 ca9eat;la4en.

19 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation (/x+ert was ri ht )e'ore,

2NC
?"E*N& T=/ /G</8T $"? 8*&=T ONC/ B/FO8/ *? T=/ 7*NK ; *T? NO D*FF/8/NT F8O% T=/ &"%B7/8 $=O T=*NK? T=/E $*77 $*N T=/ N/GT ="ND C1?T B/C"1?/ T=/E $ON " ="ND > E/"8? "&O. C=/88E <*CK*N& <"?T $*NN/8? $*T=O1T F177E D*?C7O?*N& T=/ 7O?/8? ON7E /NCO18"&/? B"D <8/D*CT*ON? *N D/B"T/. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L D1BN/8# "ll o' !s are constantl2 +re4ictin the '!t!reJ whether we think a)o!t it or not. 8i ht nowJ some small +art o' 2o!r )rain is tr2in to +re4ict what this show is oin to )e a)o!t. =ow 4o 2o! 4o thatW Eo! 'actor in what 2o!T9e hear4 so 'ar. $hat 2o! know a)o!t Freakonomics. %a2)e 2o! know a lotJ ma2)e 2o!T9e ne9er hear4 o' itJ 2o! mi ht think itTs some kin4 o' comm!nica)le 4iseaseX $hen 2o! +re4ict the '!t!reJ 2o! look 'or co niti9e c!esJ 'or 4ataJ 'or !i4ance. =ereTs where * o 'or !i4ance. ?te9en 7/V*TT# * think to an economistJ the )est ex+lanation 'or wh2 there are so man2 +re4ictions is that the incenti9es are set !+ in or4er to enco!ra e +re4ictions. D1BN/8# ThatTs ?te9e 7e9itt. =eTs m2 Freakonomics 'rien4 an4 co;a!thorJ an economist at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica o. 7/V*TT# ?oJ most +re4ictions we remem)er are ones which were 'a)!lo!sl2J wil4l2 !nex+ecte4 an4 then came tr!e. NowJ the +erson who makes that +re4iction has a stron incenti9e to remin4 e9er2one that the2 ma4e that craO2 +re4iction which came tr!e. *' 2o! look at all the +eo+leJ the economistsJ who talke4 a)o!t the 'inancial crisis ahea4 o' timeJ those !2s har+ on it constantl2. (* was ri htJ * was ri htJ * was ri ht., B!t i' 2o!Tre wron J thereTs no +erson on the other si4e o' the transaction who 4raws an2 real )ene'it 'rom em)arrassin 2o! )2 )rin !+ the )a4 +re4iction o9er an4 o9er. ?o thereTs no)o42 who has a stron incenti9eJ !s!all2J to o )ack an4 sa2J =ereTs the list o' the 116 +re4ictions that were 'alse. * remem)er rowin !+J m2 motherJ who is somewhat o' a +s2chic D1BN/8# $aitJ somewhat o' a +s2chicW 7/V*TT# ?heTs a sel';+roclaime4 +s2chic. "n4 she wo!l4 +re4ict a stock market crash e9er2 sin le 2ear. D1BN/8# "n4 sheTs )een ri ht a co!+le times. 7/V*TT# "n4 she has )een. ?heTs )een ri ht twice in the last 1> 2earsJ an4 she wo!l4 talk a lot a)o!t the times she was ri ht. * wo!l4 ha9e to remin4 her a)o!t the 1: times that she was wron . "n4 witho!t an2 sort o' market mechanism or incenti9e 'or kee+in the +re4iction makers honestJ thereTs lots o' incenti9e to o o!t an4 to make these wil4 +re4ictions. "n4 those are the ones that are remem)ere4 an4 talke4 a)o!t. Think o' a)o!t one o' the +re4ictions that 2o! hear echoe4 more o'ten than P!st a)o!t an2 one is Coe NamathTs 'amo!s +rono!ncement a)o!t how the Cets were oin to win the ?!+er Bowl. "n4 it was !nex+ecte4. "n4 it ha++ene4. "n4 i' the Cets ha4 lost the ?!+er BowlJ no)o42 wo!l4 remem)er that Coe Namath ma4e that +rono!ncement. D1BN/8# "n4 con9ersel2J 2o! can +ro)a)l2 'in4 at least one +la2er on e9er2 team thatTs lost the ?!+er Bowl in the last 'ort2 2ears that 4i4 +re4ict that his team wo!l4 win.

20 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# (%!lti+le /x+erts " ree,

2NC
8/C/CT <//8 <8/??18/ ; C1?T B/C"1?/ "77 T=/ COO7 </O<7/ "8/ C1%<*N& OFF T=/ B8*D&/ DO/?NHT %/"N EO1 ?=O17D TOO T=/ B/7*/F T="T ?O%/T=*N& *? T81/ C1?T B/C"1?/ OT=/8? B/7*/V/ *T ON7E C"1?/? B"D <8/D*CT*ON?. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L 7/V*TT# ThatTs +ro)a)l2 ri ht. ThatTs exactl2 ri ht. NowJ the 'li+ si4eJ which is +erha+s s!r+risin J is that in man2 cases the oal o' +re4iction is to )e com+letel2 within the +ack. "n4 so * see this a lot with +ension '!n4 mana ersJ or en4owment mana ersJ which is i' somethin oes wron then as lon as e9er2)o42 else ma4e the same +re4ictionJ 2o! canTt )e 'a!lte4 9er2 m!ch. D1BN/8# <ension mana ers. Foot)all +la2ers. <s2chic moms. 8omanian witches. $ho 4oesnTt tr2 to +re4ict the '!t!re these 4a2sW I?O1ND %ONT"&/ OF <8/D*CT*ON?L D1BN/8# "n4 2o! know the worst thin W ThereTs almost no)o42 kee+in track o' all those +re4ictionsX No)o42 S exce+t 'or this !2 S <hili+ T/T7OCK# $ellJ *Tm a research +s2cholo istJ who S D1BN/8# DonTt 'or et 2o!r nameJ tho! h. T/T7OCK# *Tm <hil Tetlock an4 *Tm a research +s2cholo ist. * s+ent most o' career at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Cali'orniaJ Berkele2J an4 * recentl2 mo9e4 to the 1ni9ersit2 o' <enns2l9ania where *Tm cross; a++ointe4 in the $harton ?chool an4 the +s2cholo 2 4e+artment. D1BN/8# <hili+ Tetlock has 4one a lot o' research on co nition an4 4ecision;makin an4 )iasJ +rett2 stan4ar4 st!'' 'or an *92 7ea !e +s2ch <hD. B!t what reall2 'ascinates him is +re4iction. T/T7OCK# There are a lot o' +s2cholo ists who )elie9e that there is a har4;wire4 h!man nee4 to )elie9e that we li9e in a '!n4amentall2 +re4icta)le an4 controlla)le !ni9erse. ThereTs also a wi4es+rea4 )elie' amon +s2cholo ists that +eo+le tr2 har4 to im+ose ca!sal or4er on the worl4 aro!n4 themJ e9en when those +henomena are ran4om. D1BN/8# This har4wire4 h!man nee4J as Tetlock +!ts itJ has create4 what he calls a +re4iction in4!str2. NowJ 4onTt sneer. Eo!Tre +art o' itJ too. T/T7OCK# * think there are man2 +la2ers in what 2o! mi ht co!nt the +re4iction in4!str2. *n some sense weTre all +la2ers in it. $hene9er we o to a cocktail +art2J or a colloM!i!mJ or whate9er where o+inions are )ein share4J we 'reM!entl2 make likelihoo4 P!4 ments a)o!t +ossi)le '!t!res. "n4 the tr!th or 'alsit2 o' +artic!lar claims a)o!t '!t!res. The +re4iction )!siness is a )i )!siness on $all ?treetJ an4 we ha9e '!t!res markets an4 so 'orth 4esi ne4 to re !late s+ec!lation in those areas. O)9io!sl2J o9ernment has reat interest in +re4iction. The2 create lar e intelli ence a enc2 )!rea!cracies an4 s2stems to hel+ them achie9e some 4e ree o' +re4icta)ilit2 in a seemin l2 chaotic worl4. D1BN/8# 7et me rea4 somethin that 2o! ha9e sai4 or written in the +ast. (This 4etermination to 'erret o!t or4er 'rom chaos has ser9e4 o!r s+ecies well. $eTre all )ene'iciaries o' o!r reat collecti9e s!ccesses in +!rs!it o' 4eterministic re !larities in mess2 +henomena V a ric!lt!reJ anti)ioticsJ an4 co!ntless other in9entions., ?o talk to me 'or a moment a)o!t the 9al!e o' +re4iction. O)9io!sl2 thereTs m!ch has )een aine4J m!ch to )e aine4. Do we o9er9al!e +re4iction tho! hJ +erha+sW T/T7OCK# * think thereTs an as2mmetr2 o' s!++l2 an4 4eman4. * think there is an enormo!s 4eman4 'or acc!rate +re4ictions in man2 s+heres o' li'e in which we 4onTt ha9e the reM!isite ex+ertise to 4eli9er. "n4 when 2o! ha9e that kin4 o' a+ )etween 4eman4 an4 real s!++l2 2o! et the in'!sion o' 'ake s!++l2.

21 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# 7an !a e 3---5

"1T=O8? 1?/ T/8%? 7*K/ (<8OB"B7EJ 7*K/7EJ ?O%/T*%/?, "ND OT=/8 1ND1"NT*F"B7/ $O8D? TO OB?C18/ <8OB"B*7*TE TO ?K/$ T=/ D/C*?*ON C"7C171? *N F"VO8 OF B"D N1C7/"8 <O7*CE%"K*N& ;7*T/
"xelro4 96 I?eth C. in4e+en4entresearcher 4ealin with missilenon+roli'eration iss!es T=/ <*TF"77? OF 8O&1/ CO1NT8E "N"7E?*?1)2 Center 'or *nternational Tra4e an4 ?ec!rit2 Non+roli'erationJ DemilitariOation an4 "rms Control Center 'or *nternational Tra4e an4 ?ec!rit2 Vol. :/.J No. ./1Fall 199A/$inter 1996L IctL D!anti'ication# &"O has o)ser9e4 that the !se o' !nM!anti'ia)le wor4s or +hrases s!ch as (!nlikel2J,(likel2J, (+ro)a)l2J, (normall2J, (sometimesJ, (some leaka eJ, an4 ('easi)leJ )!t !nlikel2, ma2 all contri)!te to mis+erce+tions an4 o)sc!re the certaint2 le9el associate4 with ke2 P!4 ements. This is +artic!larl2 so re ar4in o''icial assessmentsJ s!ch asN*/sJ where such language is not of much help to someone trying to make an important decision, and in which different people can have radically differing interpretations from the same words.20Once a ainJthe si ni'icance o' this consi4eration an4 its +otential im+lications 'or +olic2 can not )e o9erstate4J an4 can)e easil2 seen )2 contrastin one o' the ke2 P!4 ements o' N*/ 9>;19 with s!)seM!ent missile4e9elo+ments.*n con ressional testimon2 on N*/ 9>;19J 8ichar4Coo+erJ Chairman o' the National *ntelli enceCo!ncilJ state4# (we are likel2 to 4etect an2 in4i eno!s+ro ram to 4e9elo+ a lon ;ran e )allistic missileman2 2ears )e'ore 4e+lo2ment, e9en allowin 'or theacM!isition o' some 'orei n technolo 2 )2 co!ntrieso' interest.21EetJ recent intelli ence leaks an4 otherre+ortin s! ests that *ranJ with 'orei n assistanceJ isnow within two 2ears o' a 1J>00 km )allistic missiles2stem. The most recent an4 larin 4emonstrationo' the 'ail!re to o)ser9e this a4monition can )e 'o!n4in the De'ense De+artmentTs recent re+ort<roli'eration# Threat an4 8es+onse which notesJ 'orexam+leJ (it is likel2 8!ssian technolo ical s!++ort ortrainin will contin!e to 'in4 its wa2 to s!ch co!ntriesJsometimes witho!t necessaril2 ainin %oscowTsa++ro9al.,22This same +ro)lem is e9i4ent in the work o'anal2sts o+eratin o!tsi4e o''icial 'rameworks. Di=!aJ amon othersJ has o)ser9e4# (<erce+tions )2their 9er2 nat!re are s!)Pecti9eJ e9en when 4escri)e4)2 in4e+en4ent researchers stri9in to )e im+artial.This s!)Pecti9it2 means that threat +erce+tions can)e mani+!late4 or misre+resente4J sometimes M!itec2nicall2.,2:Clearl2J M!anti'ication is no eas2 taskJes+eciall2 as it relates to so m!rk2 a +ro)lem as theanal2sis o' ro !e co!ntr2 +roli'eration +ro ramsJwhere man2 o' the in+!ts ma2 )e 'ar 'romM!anti'ia)le. Ne9erthelessJ certain as+ects o' s!ch+ro ramsJ e. .J aeros+ace learnin c!r9esJ 8UD c2clesan4 other as+ects o' )allistic missile 4e9elo+mentwhich are known an4 can )e extra+olate4 !+on 'rom+ast ex+erienceJ ma2 len4 themsel9es to some 4e reeo' M!anti'ication an4 anal2tical ri or. "t the 9er2minim!mJ the &"OTs ke2 concl!sion re ar4in N*/s ma2 )e eM!all2 a++lie4 to the o!tsi4e anal2st#(M!anti'2 the certaint2 le9el o'...P!4 ements )2 !sin +ercenta es or Y)ettorsT o44sJ, where 'easi)leJ an4a9oi4 o9erstatin the certaint2 o' P!4 ementsJ,+artic!larl2 in li ht o' in'ormation a+s.2.7inch+in

22 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# 7aw 8e9iews

2NC
7"$ 8/V*/$? "8/ D//<7E F7"$/D T=/E 7"CK " 8*&O8O1? %/T=ODO7O&E FOC1? ON D"T"
/+stein U Kin 02 I7ee <ro'essor o' <olitical ?cience an4 <ro'essor o' 7awJ $ashin ton 1ni9ersit2 in ?t. 7o!is U &ar2J <ro'essor o' &o9ernmentJ =ar9ar4 1ni9ersit2 an4 ?enior ?cience "49isorJ /9i4ence an4 *n'ormation 'or <olic2 Cl!sterJ $orl4 =ealth Or aniOation. /m+irical 8esearch "n4 The &oals O' 7e al ?cholarshi+# The 8!les O' *n'erence 09 1. Chi. 7. 8e9. 1 $interJ 2002 7/NL IctL "t the same timeJ the c!rrent state o' em+irical le al scholarshi+ is 4ee+l2 'lawe4. $e )ase this claim +rimaril2 on a re9iew we con4!cte4 o' the le al literat!re 16;;a re9iew that re9eale4 man2 +rocee4in with research a en4asJ howe9er 4i9erse their oals mi ht )eJ with little awareness o'J m!ch less com+liance withJ the r!les o' in'erence that !i4e em+irical research in the social an4 nat!ral sciences. The s!staine4J sel'conscio!s attention to the metho4olo 2 o' em+irical anal2sis so +resent in the Po!rnals in tra4itional aca4emic 'iel4s 3witho!t which scholars in those 4isci+lines wo!l4 )e !na)le to +!)lish their work in re+!ta)le Po!rnals or ex+ect it to )e rea4 )2 an2one with an interest in how the worl4 works5;;that isJ the articles 4e9ote4 to metho4olo 2 in these 4isci+lines;;is 9irt!all2 nonexistent in the nationHs law re9iews. 19 "s a res!ltJ rea4ers learn consi4era)l2 less acc!rate I-AL in'ormation a)o!t the em+irical worl4 than the st!4iesH stri4entl2 state4J )!t o9erl2 con'i4entJ concl!sions s! est. This is hi hl2 +ro)lematicJ i9en that le al scholarshi+;;+erha+s to a reater 4e ree an4 more imme4iatel2 than most other research;;has the +otential to in'l!ence +!)lic +olic2 as it is +rom!l ate4 )2 P!4 esJ le islatorsJ an4 )!rea!crats. 20 *t is es+eciall2 so when that in'l!ence comes in st!4ies assessin the likel2 conseM!ences o' +artic!lar chan es in +!)lic +olic2J e9al!atin the im+act o' existin +!)lic +ro ramsJ or a''ectin the real worl4 in a timel2 manner. 21 B!t e9en i' the I-6L I-9L content o' the concl!4in sections in law re9iew articles;;o'ten +rescri+tions or +olic2 im+lications o' the research;;were to o lar el2 i nore4 or were eare4 +rimaril2 to other aca4emicsJ o!r concerns a)o!t the +resent state o' le al scholarshi+ wo!l4 remain. "'ter allJ re ar4less o' the +!r+oseJ e''ectJ or inten4e4 a!4ience o' the researchJ aca4emics ha9e an o)li ation to +ro4!ce work that is relia)le. /m+irical scholarshi+ that 4oes not 'ollow the time;honore4 r!les o' in'erence is !nlikel2 to '!l'ill this o)li ation. 1n'ort!natel2J too m!ch le al scholarshi+ 'alls into this cate or2. Too m!ch le al scholarshi+ i nores the r!les o' in'erence an4 a++lies instea4 the Kr!lesK o' +ers!asion an4 a49ocac2. These Kr!lesK ha9e an im+ortant +lace in le al st!4iesJ )!t not when the oal is to learn a)o!t the em+irical worl4. One so!rce o' the +ro)lem almost certainl2 lies in the trainin law +ro'essors recei9eJ 22 an4 the eneral a++roach to scholarshi+ that res!lts. $hile a <h.D. is ta! ht to s!)Pect his or her 'a9ore4 h2+othesis to e9er2 concei9a)le test an4 4ata so!rceJ seekin o!t all +ossi)le e9i4ence a ainst his or her theor2J an attorne2 is ta! ht to amass all the e9i4ence 'or his or her h2+othesis an4 4istract attention 'rom an2thin that mi ht )e seen as contra4ictor2 in'ormation. "n attorne2 who treats a client like a h2+othesis wo!l4 )e 4is)arre4R a <h.D. who a49ocates a h2+othesis like a client wo!l4 )e i nore4. 2: B!t when attorne2s;;as I-10L law +ro'essors;;mo9e 'rom the co!rtroom to the 'ac!lt2 commons 3where the tr!thJ an4 not P!st a +artic!lar 9ersion o' itJ matters5J it is hi hl2 +ro)lematic 'or them to 4e'en4 theories an4 h2+otheses as i' the2 were clients in nee4 o' the )est +ossi)le re+resentationJ 4ismissin com+etitors o!t o' han4 or i norin them entirel2. 2. That is )eca!se in em+irical researchJ challen in a theor2 with the )est +ossi)le o++osin ar !ments is what makes the stron est case 'or a theor2. 2> B!t eno! h. O!r +!r+ose here is not to lam)aste law +ro'essors or the scholarshi+ the2 enerateR 20 it is rather to make a +ro4!cti9e contri)!tion inten4e4 to miti ate existin +ro)lems in the literat!re. $e attem+t to accom+lish this )2 a4a+tin the r!les o' in'erence !se4 in the social an4 nat!ral sciences to the s+ecial nee4sJ theoriesJ an4 4ata in le al scholarshi+J an4 )2 ex+licatin them with extensi9e ill!strations 'rom existin research. 2A *n so 4oin J we ho+e to s+eak to I-11L 9ario!s constit!encies within the comm!nit2. 7aw +ro'essorsJ i9en their +ro+ensit2 to 4raw in'erences a)o!t the real worl4J clearl2 ha9e a stron interest in learnin how to con4!ct em+irical research +ro+erl2. B!t it is eM!all2 clear that man2 ha9e not t!rne4 that interest into +ro4!cti9e research +ractices. $e )elie9e the r!les an4 !i4elines we set o!t can )e in to hel+ e9er2one 4o soJ an4J in the lon er termJ im+ro9e the M!alit2 o' le al scholarshi+J 26 there)2 ena)lin law +ro'essors to contri)!te to a cre4i)leJ 9ali4J commonJ an4 !ltimatel2 more 9al!a)le research enter+rise. "t the same timeJ we want to enco!ra e reater sel'conscio!s attention to metho4olo 2 in le al st!4iesJ which is 9irt!all2 non; existent in the law re9iewsJ e9en in articles that con4!ct ori inal em+irical research. The law is im+ortant eno! h to ha9e a s!)'iel4 4e9ote4 to metho4olo ical concernsJ as 4oes almost e9er2 other 4isci+line that con4!cts em+irical research. ?cholars toilin in the socialJ nat!ralJ an4 +h2sical sciences can hel+J )!t a whole 'iel4 cannot co!nt on others with 4i''erin oals an4 +ers+ecti9es to sol9e all o' the +ro)lems that law +ro'essors ma2 'ace. 1n'ort!natel2J the com+lete list o' all law re9iew articles 4e9ote4 to im+ro9in J !n4erstan4in J ex+licatin J or a4a+tin the r!les o' in'erence is as 'ollows# none. Th!sJ in a44ition to +er!sin this "rticleJ we ho+e others will take !+ the challen e o' attem+tin to ex+lainJ a4a+tJ an4 exten4 the r!les o' in'erence in le al scholarshi+J an4 to write other articles a)o!t the metho4olo 2 o' em+irical anal2sis in this 'iel4. I-12L

D"T" ?"%/ C*T/

2: / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

$e th!s )e an )2 castin the net 9er2 wi4el2J rea4in all 2:1 articles +!)lishe4 in all "merican law re9iews )etween 1990 an4 2000 I-10L that ha4 the wor4 Kem+iricalK in their title. :A $e in9entorie4 these articles )eca!seJ )2 9irt!e o' their titlesJ the2 at least claime4 to )e con4!ctin research )ase4 on real;worl4 o)ser9ations. K/m+irical researchK a++arentl2 has )ecome a term o' art in le al scholarshi+J an4 man2 o' those !sin it in their titles a++ear to )e intentionall2 i4enti'2in their work with this mo9ement. $e ha9e since )een s!++lementin this search strate 2 with a narrower one inten4e4 to !nco9er an4 e9al!ate some o' the )est in em+irical le al research. This searchJ still in +ro ressJ incl!4es all em+irical articles 'rom six to+ law re9iews 3Chica oJ Col!m)iaJ =ar9ar4J NE1J ?tan'or4J an4 Eale5 +!)lishe4 )etween 199> an4 2000. :6 *t also incl!4es the 'i't2 most; cite4 articles 3accor4in to the 7e al ?cholarshi+ Network5 that were written )2 le al aca4emics an4 a++eare4 in the law re9iews. :9 $e a44e4 to these 'ormal lists 9ia a m!ch more in'ormal a++roachR namel2J )2 rea4in wi4el2 thro! h law re9iewsJ 'ollowin citationsJ an4 rea4in '!rther. $hen le al aca4emics learne4 we were workin on this +roPectJ man2 were kin4 eno! h to sen4 !s their em+irical work or to re'er !s to othersJ an4 we rea4 these as well. Finall2J we examine4 st!4ies in 'o!r +eer;re9iewe4 law Po!rnals 3the Co!rnal o' 7aw U /conomicsR the Co!rnal o' 7awJ /conomicsJ U Or aniOationR the Co!rnal o' 7e al ?t!4iesJ an4 the 7aw U ?ociet2 8e9iew5 e9en tho! h social scientists an4 )!siness school 'ac!lt2 a!thore4 most o' the articles in them;;not mem)ers o' the le al comm!nit2J who constit!te the +rimar2 a!4ience 'or this "rticle. .0 $e ha9e o)9io!sl2 not e9al!ate4 an2thin close to all em+irical research in the lawJ )!t we ha9e searche4 extensi9el2 in somethin 9er2 ro! hl2 a++roximatin a re+resentati9e sam+le o' all em+irical research in the law re9iews. $e also 'oc!se4 4ee+l2 in se9eral wa2s in areas where M!alit2 sho!l4 )e hi hJ so m!ch so thatJ 'or this sam+leJ an2 concl!sions we 4raw sho!l4 )e )iase4 a ainst a 'in4in o' metho4olo ical +ro)lems. I-1AL NonethelessJ o!r res!lts are 4isco!ra in . $hile it is certainl2 tr!e that some articles in the law re9iews are )etter than othersJ an4 some meet the r!les o' in'erence )etter than others 4oJ e9er2 one we ha9e rea4 th!s 'ar;;e9er2 sin le one;;9iolates at least one o' the r!les we 4isc!ss in the )alance o' this "rticle. .1 ?ince all;;e9er2 sin le one;;ha9e the +otential to 'in4 their wa2 into a co!rt caseJ an a4ministrati9e +rocee4in J or a le islati9e hearin J we can onl2 ima ine the serio!s conseM!ences 'or +!)lic +olic2 3not to mention 'or the 4e9elo+ment o' knowle4 e5 that ma2 ha9e alrea42 res!lte4;;or still ma2 res!lt. .2

2. / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

Violation# 7ow;<ro)/ =i h;%a /9ent

2NC
C1D&/? /%<*8*C"77E C"NHT "CC18"T/7E "CC/?? 7O$ <8OB"B*7*TE/B*& *%<"CT /V/NT?
Visc!si 99 I$. Ki+ =ar9ar4 7aw ?chool (=ow Do C!4 es Think a)o!t 8iskW, "merican 7aw an4 /conomics 8e9iew V* N1/2 1999 320; 025L IctL The stan4ar4 economic +rescri+tion 'or 4eterminin an e''icient le9el o' sa'et2 is to assess whether the )ene'its o' the sa'et2 im+ro9ement excee4 the cost. For contin!o!s chan es in sa'et2J the M!estion is whether sa'et2 le9els ha9e )een increase4 !ntil the mar inal )ene'its P!st eM!al the mar inal costs. These same kin4s o' +rinci+les 'orm the 'o!n4ation 'or law an4 economics inter+retation o' ne li ence r!les as well.6 C!4 es consi4ere4 one o' three s!r9e2 M!estions 4esi ne4 to test the 4e ree to which the2 wo!l4 a++l2 the +rinci+les em)o4ie4 in this stan4ar4 ne li ence test. The cost o' the sa'et2 im+ro9ement in e9er2 instance was Z2J000. *n a44itionJ the ex+ecte4 )ene'its o' the sa'et2 im+ro9ementJ which eM!al the re4!ction in the risk +ro)a)ilit2 m!lti+lie4 )2 the siOe o' the lossJ eM!ale4 Z1J>00 in e9er2 instance. Th!sJ a++l2in the ne li ence r!le as cast in law an4 economics terms wo!l4 s! est that the sa'et2 meas!re was not e''icient an4 that the 'irm sho!l4 not )e hel4 lia)le 'or the re+air. The three ex+erimental mani+!lations 9arie4 the +ro)a)ilit2 o' the acci4ent an4 the siOe o' the loss )!t hel4 constant the ex+ecte4 9al!e o' the loss that wo!l4 )e +re9ente4 )2 !n4ertakin the Z2J000 re+air. *n the 'irst instanceJ P!4 es consi4ere4 a +ro+ert2 4ama e loss o' Z1>J000 co!]+le4 with a risk +ro)a)ilit2 o' 1/10 that wo!l4 )e eliminate4 thro! h the sa'et2 re+air. The ex+ecte4 loss is conseM!entl2 Z1J>00J which is less than the re+air cost. The secon4 9ariant increase4 the siOe o' the +ro+ert2 4am]a e )2 a 'actor o' 100 to Z1.> millionJ re4!cin the +ro)a)ilit2 o' loss )2 a 'actor o' 100 to eM!al 1/1J000J lea9in the ex+ecte4 loss !nchan e4 at Z1J>00. The thir4 9ariant increase4 the siOe o' the loss to Z1.> )illionJ which incl!4e4 the 9al!e o' +ersonal inP!r2 lossesJ an4 accom+anie4 it with a +ro)a)ilit2 o' the loss o' 1/1J000J000. Th!sJ this chan e scale4 losses !+ )2 a 'actor o' 1J000 an4 scale4 the +ro)a)ilit2 4own )2 a 'ac]tor o' 1J000J lea9in the ex+ecte4 loss !nchan e4. For the +ersonal inP!r2 M!estionJ the li9es lost were 9al!e4 at Z> million +er li'eJ an4 res+on4ents were tol4 that this amo!nt wo!l4 re'lect the '!ll social 9al!e o' the loss. *n e9er2 instanceJ the s!r9e2 in4icate4 that the com+an2 ha4 s!''icient reso!rces to +a2 the 4ama es.9 "n exam+le o' one o' these M!estions 3the interme4iate case5 is the 'ollowin # Eo! are C/O o' 8ock2 %o!ntain "irline. The car o 4oor on the +lane 4oes not o+erate +ro+erl2. Fixin it costs Z2J000. *' it is not 'ixe4J there is a)sol!tel2 no sa'et2 risk. Ver2 relia)le en ineerin estimates in4icate that there is onl2 a 1/1J000 chance o9er the ex+ecte4 li'e o' the +lane that there will )e a total loss to 2o!r com+an2 o' Z1.> million 4!e to +ro+ert2 4ama e ca!se4 )2 this +ro)lem. Th!sJ there is a 999/1J000 chance that there will )e no 4ama e whatsoe9er. Eo!r com]+an2 has no ins!rance )!t 4oes ha9e s!''icient reso!rces to +a2 these 4ama es.1^ 8es+on4ents were then aske4 to circle whether the 'irm sho!l4 !n4er]take the re+air an4 secon4J i' the re+air is not !n4ertaken an4 there was Z1.> million in +ro+ert2 4ama esJ to in4icate whether +!niti9e 4ama es sho!l4 )e awar4e4. =ow one 9iews the scenario 4e+en4s in +art on the test )ein a++lie4. The chie' exec!ti9e o''icer 3C/O5 o' the com+an2 sho!l4 +res!ma)l2 )e concerne4 with +ro'it maximiOation. The sa'et2 meas!res 4escri)e4 in9ol9e4 'inancial e''ects that wo!l4 all )e internaliOe4 )2 the 'irm. ?ince sa'et2 im+ro9ements 'ail a )ene'it;cost testJ the2 wo!l4 not enhance 'irm +ro'ita)ilit2. C!4 es res+on4in as C/Os mi htJ howe9erJ im+!te a loss in the 9al!e o' the com+an2Hs re+!tation in the e9ent o' an acci4ent in9ol9in +ersonal inP!r2J makin them more likel2 to a49ocate sa'et2 im+ro9ements in this instance. "++lication o' le al r!les sho!l4 not )e a''ecte4 )2 )roa4l2 )ase4 re+!tational e''ects. *' a sa'et2 meas!re 4oes not +ass a )ene'it;cost testJ the com+an2 sho!l4 not )e 'o!n4 ne li ent 'or 'ailin to a4o+t it. <!niti9e 4ama es +ertain to sit!ations o' reckless )eha9ior. To )e recklessJ not onl2 m!st the 'ore one sa'et2 meas!re +ass a )ene'it;cost test )!t +res!ma)l2 there sho!l4 )e a wi4e s+rea4 )etween )ene'its an4 costsJ a re+eate4 'ail!re )2 the com+an2 to a4o+t sa'e +racticesJ or other consi4erations that make the com+an2 tr!l2 reckless an4 not sim+l2 ne li ent. *n none o' the three scenarios is there an2 )asis 'or awar4in +!niti9e 4ama es. *n4ee4J )2 constr!ction the com+an2 will ne9er )e ne li ent 'or 'ailin to a4o+t the sa'et2 im+ro9ement. Ta)le > s!mmariOes the res+onses to the two M!estions 'or each o' the risk scenarios. *n the case o' the low +ro+ert2 4ama e amo!ntJ 06F o' the P!4 es wo!l4 not !n4ertake the re+airJ which is consistent with economic e''icienc2 +rinci+les. "lmost a thir4 o' the sam+le wo!l4 !n4ertake the re+air e9en tho! h the cost o' the re+air was )elow the ex+ecte4 )ene'its.

2> / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

The attit!4e towar4 +!niti9e 4ama es in this low loss case shown in <anel " o' Ta)le > 4i''ers mo4eratel2J 4e+en4in on whether re+airin the +lane to +re9ent a Z1>J000 loss is attracti9e. *n each caseJ a minor]it2 o' the P!4 es )elie9e that +!niti9e 4ama es wo!l4 a++l2 i' the re+air was not !n4ertaken an4 a loss occ!rre4J where the 'raction 'a9orin +!ni]ti9e 4ama es is reater 'or those who chose to re+air the +lane. $hat is +erha+s most strikin is that three o' the P!4 es who 4i4 not )elie9e that the +lane sho!l4 )e re+aire4 ne9ertheless wo!l4 ha9e awar4e4 +!niti9e 4ama es ha4 the +lane not )een re+aire4 an4 a loss was s!''ere4. For the entire ro!+J 16F o' the P!4 es wo!l4 awar4 +!niti9e 4ama esJ which is not in line with economic e''icienc2 +rinci+lesJ since not onl2 are +!niti9e 4ama es not warrante4 )!t )ase4 on a ne li ence test the re+airs sho!l4 not e9en )e !n4ertaken. <anel B o' Ta)le > in4icates how the res+onses chan e i' the stakes are increase4 )2 a 'actor o' 100 an4 the +ro)a)ilit2 o' 4ama es is re4!ce4 )2 a 'actor o' 100. C!4 es in this instance are almost e9enl2 4i9i4e4 as to whether the +lane sho!l4 )e re+aire4. 8es+on4ents who 4i4 not in4i]cate that re+airin the +lane was worthwhile almost !nanimo!sl2 o++ose4 +!niti9e 4ama esJ whereas 'or the res+on4ents who 'a9ore4 re+airin the +lane there was an eM!al 4i9ision )etween those who s!++orte4 +!niti9e 4ama es an4 those who 4i4 not. The 'inal 9ariation in <anel C increases the loss to Z1.> )illionJ which incl!4es the 9al!e o' +ersonal inP!riesJ where the s!r9e2 in4icate4 that this 4ama es amo!nt is inten4e4 to re'lect the '!ll social cost o' the acci]4ent. "s )e'oreJ the ex+ecte4 loss is Z1J>00J )!t the res+onses 4i''er M!ite starkl2 'rom those in the +re9io!s scenarios. 8es+on4ents are now !nanimo!s that the +lane sho!l4 )e re+aire4. %oreo9erJ more than two;thir4s o' the res+on4ents s!++orte4 +!niti9e 4ama es in this instance. $hat a++ears to )e most conseM!ential is thatJ in sit!ations in9ol9in +ersonal inP!r2J there is a m!ch reater willin ness to !n4ertake re+airs an4 im+ose +!niti9e 4ama es than in simt!ations in9ol9in +ro+ert2 4ama e e9en tho! h the ex+ecte4 economic losses are the same in each instance. The res!lts in <anel C 'or )oth the awar4 o' +!niti9e 4ama es an4 re+air]in the +lane 4i''er to a statisticall2 si ni'icant 4e ree 'rom the res!lts in <anels " an4 B. Ta)le 0 re'ines this anal2sis !sin +ro)it re ressions 'or the 4eterminant o' the +ro)a)ilit2 that the res+on4ent will in4icate that the car o 4oor sho!l4 )e re+aire4 an4 that +!niti9e 4ama es sho!l4 a++l2. The le9el o' 4ama es 4oes not ha9e a si ni'icant e''ect on the car o 4oor re+air 4ecision. $hat 4oes matter is the nonmonetar2 character o' the lossJ which was s!''icientl2 in'l!ential that these res+on4ents co!l4 not )e incl!4e4 in the re+air eM!ation. There was no 9ariation in this scenario ro!+J as all res+on4ents in the +ersonal inP!r2 9ariant 'a9ore4 re+airin the car o 4oor. The im+licit 9al!e o' li'e meas!res an4 the risk +erce+tion meas!res are not statisticall2 si ni'icantJ exce+t 'or one instance. 8es+on4ents who ha4 hi her 9al!es o' the +erce+tion eM!ations slo+e coe''icient ?i were less likel2 to !n4ertake the car o 4oor re+air. *ncrease4 9al!es o' 1:J in4icate that the res+on4entsH assesse4 +ro)a)ilities were closer to the .>^ line an4 th!s ten4e4 to re'lect the act!al risk le9el more acc!ratel2. Th!sJ acc!rate risk )elie's an4 lower )iases in risk +erce+tions are associate4 with P!4 es )ein more willin to act accor4in to e''icienc2 norms with res+ect to the car o re+air 4ecision. " +riori the role o' this 9aria)le is not clearJ since hi her 9al!es o' ?i co!l4 in4icate more alarmist res+onses to risk in that +ercei9e4 risks res+on4 more M!ickl2 to chan es in act!al risks. ?ince all ?i 9al!es were )elow 1.0J howe9erJ in this case the 9aria)le seems to )etter re'lect the acc!rac2 o' risk P!4 ments. This 9aria)le is notJ howe9erJ 4irectl2 in'l!ential in the +!niti9e 4ama es 4ecisionJ as the onl2 statisticall2 si ni'icant 9aria)les here are the le9el o' ex+ecte4 4ama es an4 whether the P!4 e )elie9es that re+airin the car o 4oor was worthwhile. Th!sJ to the extent that the risk +erce+tion slo+e 9aria)le mattersJ it is in4irectl2 in that it increases the +ro)a)ilit2 that the res+on4ent will want to re+air the car o 4oorJ which in t!rn increases the +ro)a)ilit2 that the res+on4ent )elie9es that +!niti9e 4ama es sho!l4 a++l2. O9erallJ howe9erJ it seems that +erce+tional )iases an4 the res+on4entHs own im+licit 9al!es o' li'e 4o not +la2 a central role in how the2 wo!l4 a44ress the ne li ence iss!e or the +!niti9e 4ama es iss!e in this instance. "ttit!4es towar4 the !n4erl2in re+air 4ecision an4 the siOe o' the acci4ent loss are the +rimar2 'actors o' conseM!ence. "n attracti9e as+ect o' this

20 / A.

Texas 2010 Data Framework

NDT Thiele

'in4in is that +ersonal +re'erences an4 +erce+tional )iases 4o not reatl2 a''ect ne li ence P!4 ments. =owe9erJ the siOe o' the stakes i4eall2 sho!l4 not matterJ since the ex+ecte4 losses 3i.e.J +ro)a)ilit2 x 4ama e5 is the same in e9er2 instance. "ltho! h +ersonal risk +erce+tion )iases an4 risk 9al!ations 4o not a++ear to )e instr!mentalJ the res!lts are not entirel2 'a9ora)le with res+ect to the so!n4ness o' P!4icial 4ecisions. *n terms o' the o9erall res+onses to the scenariosJ P!4 es were e9enl2 4i9i4e4 )etween re+airin an4 not re+airin the +laneJ e9en tho! h strict a++lication o' economic ne li ence r!les wo!l4 in4icate that not re+airin the +lane was 4esira)le. %oreo9erJ e9en tho! h the 'irm was not ne li ent in these exam+lesJ man2 P!4 es )elie9e that +!niti9e 4ama es were a++lica)leJ +artic!larl2 when nonmonetar2 losses are hi h. "war4in +!niti9e 4ama es when a 'irm meets a ne li ence stan4ar4 is certainl2 ina++ro+riateJ as it in4icates a 'ail!re to re'lect on the !n4erl2in )ene'it;cost tra4eo''sJ +artic!larl2 when there are lar e nonmonetar2 stakes. This res!lt is a so)erin messa e 'or com+anies 'ace4 with risk;cost calc!lations. *' these com+anies 'ollow the !r in s o' P!4icial scholars s!ch as C!4 e Frank /aster)rook an4 attem+t to think s2stematicall2 a)o!t the risks an4 costs o' their actionJ then e9en i' the2 make the correct economic 4ecision it is +ossi)le that the2 will risk +!niti9e 4ama esJ +ar]tic!larl2 when nonmonetar2 conseM!ences are in9ol9e4.11 *n the &eneral %otors 3&%5 tr!ck si4e im+act caseJ &% ha4 calc!late4 the cost o' the sa'et2 im+ro9ement an4 concl!4e4 that these costs were not o!twei he4 )2 the ex+ecte4 sa'et2 )ene'its.12 This anal2sis +arallele4 the a++roach taken 'or the For4 <into. These anal2ses !n4er9al!e4 the +ersonal inP!r2 loss )2 consi4erin onl2 the +ros+ecti9e co!rt awar4s an4 not also the im+licit 9al!e o' li'e an4 health. /9en i' the calc!lations ha4 )een 4one correctl2 an4 ha4 enerate4 the res!lt that the sa'et2 im+ro9ements were not worthwhile on an economic )asisJ howe9erJ then it is M!ite +ossi)le that the com+an2 wo!l4 ne9ertheless ha9e )een 'o!n4 lia)le 'or +!ni]ti9e 4ama es. The com+an2 ha4 con'ronte4 the risk 4ecision with ex+licit +ro)a)ilities o' riskJ clear +otential 'or a49erse health e''ectsJ an4 a le9el o' costs that wo!l4 not ha9e Peo+ar4iOe4 the sol9enc2 o' the com+an2. *' com+anies cannot rel2 on economic e''icienc2 +rescri+tions or ne li ence r!les 'or 4eterminin the le9el o' sa'et2 a'ter s!ch an anal2sisJ then there ma2 )e no sa'e har)or other than the Oero;risk le9elJ which is in'easi)le.

C"8D CONT*N1/?
The two ke2 M!estions ex+lore4 in this article were whether these as+ects o' in4i9i4!al +re'erences in 9al!ation a''ecte4 attit!4es in P!4i]cial contexts an4 whether 4ecisions in these contexts exhi)ite4 'orms o' irrationalit2 that ha9e )een i4enti'ie4 in the literat!re. C!4 esH a++lication o' ne li ence r!les )ecame m!ch more o!t o' line with stan4ar4 law an4 economic +rescri+tions once s!)stantial non+ec!niar2 4ama es were in9ol9e4. 7ar e stakesVsmall +ro)a)ilit2 catastro+hic e9ents seeme4 to +ose reater +ro)lems 'or P!4icial 4ecision makin than 4i4 hi her +ro)a)ilit2Vlower loss e9ents. The +otential 'or s!ch errors an4 the lar e costs o' error in terms o' incorrect maPor +enalties hi hli ht the +otential )ene'its o' P!4icial re9iew 'or s!ch lar e stakes cases.

D"T" ?"%/ C*T/

This article will examine the res+onses )2 a sam+le o' 9> state P!4 es to a written s!r9e2 a)o!t risk 4ecisions. "ltho! h reliance on the res!lts o' a M!estionnaire ma2 not ca+t!re the +artic!lar )iases that are most in'l!ential in act!al P!4icial 4ecisionsJ it 4oes +ro9i4e a str!ct!re4 'rame]work 'or ex+lorin a wi4er ran e o' iss!es than can )e examine4 !sin case 4ata. The P!4 es in the sam+le were +artici+ants in the law an4 economics +ro rams o''ere4 )2 the 1ni9ersit2 o' Kansas 7aw an4 Or a]niOational /conomics Center. The P!4 es were sent these written s!r9e2s )e'ore the +ro ram )e an an4 ret!rne4 the s!r9e2s )e'ore +artici+atin in the +ro ramJ where the s!r9e2 'orme4 the )asis 'or class 4isc!ssion. The res+onse rate was close to 100F. The sam+le consiste4 o' +ro ram +artici+ants in two 4i''erent sessionsJ )oth o' which took +lace in 199A. "ltho! h the meetin s were in Co++er %o!ntainJ Colora4oJ an4 ?ani)elJ Flori4aJ +artici+ants in the +ro ram were 'rom state co!rts thro! ho!t the co!ntr2. The +artici+ants incl!4e4 man2 P!4 es 'rom state co!rts o' a++ealsJ state s!+erior co!rtsJ an4 state s!+reme co!rts. The ex+erience )ase o' the sam+le conseM!entl2 is likel2 to )e reater than that o' the a9era e state co!rt P!4 e.

2A / A.

Violation# N!clear <roli'eration

1NC
%"K/ NO %*?T"K/ $="T 7*TT7/ D"T" T=/E DO OFF/8 DO/? NOT CO%/ C7O?/ TO ?T8ON& D"T"
?in h U $a2 0. I?ON"7* ?*N&= Bain an4 Com+an2 C=8*?TO<=/8 8. $"E De+artment o' &o9ernment Cornell 1ni9ersit2 the correlates o' n!clear +roli'eration a M!antitati9e test CO18N"7 OF CONF7*CT 8/?O71T*ONJ Vol. .6 No. 0J Decem)er 200. 6>9;66>L IctL This is tro!)lin J i9en o!r lack o' relia)le knowle4 e a)o!t the 4eterminants o' n!clear +roli'eration. "ltho! h there is no shorta e o' aca4emic theories to acco!nt 'or the s+rea4 o' n!clear wea+onsJ 'ew a ree on the 9ali4it2 or eneraliOa)ilit2 o' the 9ario!s alternati9es. <olic2 makers an4 scholars o' international relations s!''er 'rom an em)arrassment o' riches in the 4i9erse attem+ts to ex+lain 4ecisions to acM!ire n!clear armsJ matche4 )2 a corres+on4in +o9ert2 o' consens!s a)o!t the em+irical s!++ort enPo2e4 )2 9ario!s +ers+ecti9es. "!thors 'reM!entl2 'in4 existin ex+lanations !na)le to acco!nt 'or the 4etails o' a case o' +artic!lar interest an4 then seek to re4ress the shortcomin )2 o''erin 2et another alternati9e. /9en as ex+lanations +ro; li'erateJ we 4o not know which o' these +ers+ecti9es +ro9i4es the )est !i4e to !n4er;stan4in 4ecisions to ( o n!clear, an4 'or 'orecastin +otential '!t!re +roli'erators. $e enter the 4e)ate )2 s! estin that a M!antitati9e test o' theories o' n!clear +roli'eration can +ro9i4e a !se'!l com+lement to the M!alitati9eJ com+arati9e case st!42 metho4s that +re4ominate in this research a en4a.1 $e hi hli ht three reasons a M!an; titati9e test is an a++ro+riateJ an4 in4ee4 +erha+s necessar2J s!++lement to the +roli'eration literat!re. FirstJ )2 sam+lin on the 4e+en4ent 9aria)leJ most M!alitati9e st!4ies i nore or !n4erem+hasiOe the lar e n!m)er o' co!ntries that ha9e ne9er +!rs!e4 n!clear wea+ons. * norin non+roli'erators r!ns the risk o' !n4erestimatin the stren th o' ca!sal e''ects orJ more rarel2J erroneo!sl2 acce+tin a relationshi+ that 4oes not hol4 !+ in a wi4er sam+le 3Collier an4 %ahone2J 1990R Dion 1996R &e44es 1990R Kin J KeohaneJ an4 Ver)a 199.5. For exam+leJ as ?a an 320005 +oints o!tJ anal2sts can almost alwa2s i4enti'2 an ex;ante sec!rit2 threat a'ter the 'act o' a +roli'eration e+iso4e. Eet the2 o'ten 'ail to acknowle4 e that sec!rit2 threats are !)iM!ito!s )2 the rather elastic stan4ar4s o'ten em+lo2e4 )2 realists. *n this sit!ationJ sam+lin on the 4e+en4ent 9aria)le ma2 create a )ias towar4 o9erem+hasiOin the ex+lanator2 +ower o' sec!rit2 threats. %ore +rosaicall2J )!t eM!all2 im+ortantJ sam+lin on the 4e+en4ent 9aria)le sim+l2 4iscar4s m!ch 9al!a)le in'ormation !se'!l in 4rawin in'erences a)o!t the correlates o' +roli'eration. D!antitati9e anal2ses that incl!4e o)ser9ations co9erin the '!ll ran e o' 9ariance on )oth the 4e+en4ent an4 in4e+en4ent 9aria)les can +ro9i4e a !se'!l com+lement to M!alitati9e a++roaches that 4el9e 4ee+l2 into a limite4 n!m)er o' cases.

?econ4J theories o' n!clear wea+ons +roli'eration o'ten o''erJ either ex+licitl2 or im+licitl2J +ro)a)ilistic h2+othesesJ 2et theories are 'reM!entl2 teste4 as i' the2 make 4eterministic claims. For exam+leJ the sim+lest realist claimVthat the more se9ere an4 imme4iate a sec!rit2 threatJ the more likel2 a state is to +!rs!e n!clear armsVis clearl2 )ase4 on a +ro)a)ilistic lo ic. Eet st!4ies o' n!clear +roli'eration o'ten 'in4 realism wantin )2 i4enti'2in one or a han4'!l o' cases that 'ail to con'orm to the realist lo ic. ?tatistical mo4els )ase4 on a +ro)a)ilistic lo ic o' in'erence o''er a )etter 'it with theoretical lo ic than the 4eterministic lo ic associate4 with the %illian metho4s !n4er+innin com+arati9e case st!4ies 37ie)erson 1992J 199.5.
Not onl2 are h2+otheses a)o!t n!clear wea+ons +roli'eration )est tho! ht o' as +ro)a)ilistic statementsJ )!t it is also likel2 that there are m!lti+le 4eterminants an4 com)inations o' 'actors res+onsi)le 'or 4ecisions to +!rs!e n!clear arms. Eet man2 st!4ies im+licitl2 rel2 on monoca!sal lo ics o' in'erenceJ com+arin com+etin ex+lanations as i' lookin 'or the (ma ic )!llet, that willJ )2 itsel'J acco!nt 'or all +roli'eration 4ecisions or settin !+ 4!elin ex+lanations in a winner;take;all contest. $hen a++l2in this !ni9ariate stan4ar4J im+licit in the %illian metho4s that 'orm the )asis o' man2 com+arati9e case st!4ies 37ie)erson 19925J it is not s!r+risin that existin ex+lanations are re+eate4l2 'o!n4 ina4eM!ate when the2 'ail to acco!nt 'or all o)ser9ations or all n!ances o' +artic!lar cases. "s an alternati9eJ the m!lti9ariate lo ic o' in'erence em)o4ie4 in m!lti9ariate statistical a++roaches seems more +la!si)le. C"8D CONT*N1/? Fears o' ro !e statesJ with4rawal o' col4 warera sec!rit2 !aranteesJ a 'allin technolo ical threshol4J an4 concerns that new n!clear +owers will +ro9i4e wea+ons to terrorists all ens!re that n!clear wea+ons +roli'eration remains a central sec!rit2 iss!e an4 that 4e9elo+in an a4eM!ate !n4erstan4in o' the correlates o' +roli'eration ranks hi h on the a en4a o' international relations scholars. EetJ altho! h scholars ha9e o''ere4 an a)!n4ance o' ex+lanations 'or +roli'eration 4ecisionsJ little consens!s exists on the a4eM!ac2 o' 9ario!s theories or whether we e9en +ossess a theor2 o' n!clear +roli'eration 3O il9ie;$hite 19905. $e ar !e that this !nsatis'actor2 state o' a''airs 4eri9es at least +artl2 'rom a mismatch )etween theoretical ar !mentsJ which ten4 to make +ro)a)ilistic claims an4 en9ision m!lti+le ca!sal 9aria)lesJ an4 the +re;4ominant em+irical metho4olo 2 in the areaJ which ten4s towar4 case st!4ies that im+licitl2 a++l2 4eterministic stan4ar4s )ase4 on an 3o'ten im+licit5 !ni9ariate lo ic o' in'erence an4 sam+les on the 4e+en4ent 9aria)le. ?eekin to com+lement existin researchJ we constr!cte4 a new 4ata set on n!clear wea+ons +roli'eration an4 !se4 haOar4 mo4els to test theories o' n!clear +roli'eration. The 4ata anal2sis s! ests that existin theories 4eser9e more cre4it than the2 are 'reM!entl2 i9en# n!clear wea+ons +roli'eration is reasona)l2 well acco!nte4 'or )2 the le9el o' economic 4e9elo+ment an4 the external threat en9ironment.

Violation# N!clear <roli'eration

"T# "n2 D!antitati9e /9
2NC <8O7*F/8"T*ON 7*T/8"T18/ *?NHT V/8E D1"NT*T"T*V/ T=/*8 /V *? 7"1&="B7/ *N "NE OT=/8 ?T"T*?T*C"7 CONT/GT
%ont omer2 U ?a an 09 I"lexan4er =. De+artment o' <olitical ?cience 8ee4 Colle eJ <ortlan4 an4 ?cott D. De+artment o' <olitical ?cience ?tan'or4 1ni9ersit2J ?tan'or4 The <erils o' <re4ictin <roli'eration Co!rnal o' Con'lict 8esol!tion 2009R >:R :02L IctL These new st!4ies o' n!clear +roli'erationJ howe9erJ 4es+ite !sin the most !+;to 4ate 4ata sets an4 techniM!es a9aila)leJ 4o not resol9e 'i9e serio!s +ro)lems that ha9e also +la !e4 earlier M!antitati9e st!4ies o' n!clear +roli'eration. FirstJ it is inherentl2 4i''ic!lt to ha9e acc!rate co4in o' the 4e+en4ent 9aria)les re ar4in whether states are ex+lorin J +!rs!in J or ha9e acM!ire4 n!clear wea+ons# some o9ernmentsT ci9ilian n!clear;+ower +ro rams re'lect internal am)i9alence a)o!t whether the state sho!l4 +!rs!e a )om) o+tionJ an4 the intense secrec2 s!rro!n4in wea+ons +ro rams has meant that earlier +!)lishe4 4ata sets le't o!t man2 cases o' co9ert +ro rams or the creation o' (he4 in , o+tionsJ a +ro)lem likel2 to remain +ersistent 'or the 'oreseea)le '!t!re. $hile the articles in this iss!e !se a common 4ata set 'or n!clearwea+ons +ossessionJ increasin the com+ara)ilit2 o' res!lts across this set o' articlesJ their !se o' a common 4ata set 4ecreases the ro)!stness o' their 'in4in s )eca!seJ as we will 4emonstrateJ other reasona)le co4in s on when states initiate4 or com+lete4 n!clear;wea+ons +ro rams +ro4!ce 9er2 4i''erent res!lts. ?econ4J the co4in r!les !se4 'or existin in4e+en4ent 9aria)les in n!clear;+roli'eration anal2ses are also +ro)lematic. Too o'tenJ M!antitati9e researchers meas!re what is easil2 meas!re4 rather than 'in4 wa2s o' acc!ratel2 ca+t!rin the conce+ts that o!r theories s! est sho!l4 )e im+ortant. 8e ar4in the ca!ses o' +roli'erationJ 'or exam+leJ im+ortant 'actors that ha9e )een 4isc!sse4 in historical case st!4ies o' +roli'erationVs!ch as lea4ersT +s2cholo 2J )!rea!cratic +owerJ an4 militar2 a!tonom2 an4 the 4esire 'or +resti eVare o'ten excl!4e4 alto ether or meas!re4 +oorl2 in statistical st!4ies. The +ro)lem also exists 'or the M!antitati9e literat!re on the conseM!ences o' +roli'erationJ in which the rele9ant in4e+en4ent 9aria)le is ass!me4 to )e a stateTs 'irst n!clear wea+onJ 4es+ite a lon ;stan4in 4e)ate in the historical literat!re a)o!t whether states are 4eterre4 )2 9irt!al n!clear wea+onsJ a sin le )om)J a small arsenalJ or a secon4;strike n!clear ca+a)ilit2. *nstea4 o' 4e9elo+in new 4ata sets to test 'or the e''ects o' s!ch 'actorsJ the literat!re !ses +rox2 9aria)les )ase4 on +re;existin 4ata setsJ makin the st!4ies +artic!larl2 9!lnera)le to the (lookin 'or the ke2 !n4er the lam++ost, char eJ as we will 4emonstrate )elow. Thir4J metho4olo ies an4 4ata sets nee4 to )e ti htl2 co!+le4 to the em+irical M!estions )ein in9esti ate4. *ncl!4in a )roa4er set o' states in a 4ata set witho!t +ro+er controls allows states that cannot ha9e an2 in'l!ence on +rocesses or o!tcomes to skew res!ltsJ as we will also 4emonstrate. Fo!rthJ some M!antitati9e +roli'eration articles ha9e 'in4in s that are tri9ialJ +ro9i4in !s with insi hts that we alrea42 knew or at least )elie9e4 to )e tr!e. $hile it is alwa2s 9al!a)le to +ro9i4e tests o' commonl2 hel4 9iews to see i' the2 are in4ee4 acc!rateJ man2 o' these st!4ies ha9e 'aile4 to +ro4!ce co!nterint!iti9e insi hts that wo!l4 a44 more si ni'icantl2 to o!r !n4erstan4in o' +roli'eration. Fi'thJ an4 'inall2J statistical 'in4in s can i nore or loss o9er in4i9i4!al 4ata +oints that are cr!ciall2 im+ortant 'or +olic2 makin an4 wi4er scholarl2 4e)ates. $e note in this articleJ 'or exam+leJ that the 1999 Kar il war )etween *n4ia an4 <akistanVthe onl2 !n4is+!te4 case o' a war )etween n!clear;arme4 statesVis sim+l2 i nore4 )2 these st!4iesJ as it 4oes not a++ear as a se+arate 4is+!te in the %*D 4ata)ase an4 is not liste4 as a war in the Correlates o' $ar 3CO$5 or *CB 4ata)ases.1 *t is 9al!a)le in this li ht to com+are the st!42 o' n!clear +roli'eration to the st!42 o' the (4emocratic +eace, in international relations. *n )oth o' these research areasJ the scholarshi+ has slowl2 ex+an4e4 'rom M!alitati9e theoretical an4 historical inM!ir2 to incl!4e more ame;theoretic a++roaches an4 s2stematic M!antitati9e testin o' h2+otheses. The 4e9elo+ment +ath o' research in the 4emocratic +eace has +ro resse4 si ni'icantl2 4!rin the +ast two 4eca4es in wa2s that are instr!cti9e. This literat!re )e an with 4e4!ctions )ase4 on +olitical theor2 an4 limite4 historical e9i4ence that s! este4 that 4emocratic states rarel2J i' e9erJ o to war a ainst each other 3Kant I1A9>L 191AR Do2le 19605. Vi oro!s 4e)ates a)o!t the 4emocratic;+eace theor2 emer e4 in +olitical science startin in the 1960sJ an4 a +ro ressi9e research +ro ram o' man2 scholars !sin m!lti+le metho4s e9ent!all2 +ro4!ce4 a si ni'icantJ altho! h )2 no means com+leteJ 4e ree o' consens!s a)o!t how an4 wh2 4emocracies 4i''er 'rom non4emocracies in their 'orei n +olic2 an4 international;sec!rit2 )eha9ior 37ake 1992R %aoO an4 8!ssett 199:R Fearon 199.R %ans'iel4 an4 ?n24er 199>R /lman 199AR ?ch!ltO 1996R 8!ssett an4 Oneal 2001R 8eiter an4 ?tam 2002R &artOke 200A5. O!r !n4erstan4in o' the e''ect o' 4emocrac2 on the likelihoo4 an4 con4!ct o' war has )een si ni'icantl2 enhance4 )2 )oth rich historical an4 ri oro!s M!antitati9e scholarshi+ on the 4emocratic +eace. $e ho+e that this s+ecial iss!e an4 this critiM!e can lea4 scholars to em!late the 4emocratic;+eace literat!reJ +ro4!ce more m!ltimetho4 researchJ an4 contri)!te '!rther to im+ro9e4 !n4erstan4in o' the ca!ses an4 conseM!ences o' n!clear +roli'eration.

Violation# *nternational 8elations

1NC
?T8ON& D"T" *? N/C/??"8E FO8 ?1CC/??F17 *NT/8N"T*ON"7 8/7"T*ON? <O7*CE%"K*N&
?tarr A. I=ar9e2 De+artment o' <olitical ?cience *n4iana 1ni9ersit2 8e9iew# The D!antitati9e *nternational 8elations ?cholar as ?!r'er# 8i4in the KFo!rth $a9eK "!thor3s5# The Co!rnal o' Con'lict 8esol!tionJ Vol. 16J No. 2 3C!n.J 19A.5J ++. ::0;:06L IctL
The M!antitati9e st!42 o' international relationsJ nee4less to sa2J means man2 thin s to man2 men. To )e seen an4 ke+t in +ro+er +ers+ecti9eJ it m!st )e stresse4 that M!antitati9e international relations 4oes not constit!te a s!)stanti9e s!)'iel4 o' international relationsJ )!t merel2 a common metho4olo ical a++roach to the 4i9erse s!)stance that makes !+ international relations 3see Cones an4 ?in erJ 19A2# 1A5. D!antitati9e anal2sis incor+orates the im+ortant K K o+erational elements o' KscienceJK the scienti'ic a++roach or Kmetho4.K The common metho4olo 2 o' M!antitati9e an4 scienti'ic anal2sis is one whichJ it will )e ar !e4J is ca+a)le o' allowin !s to create that new K4isci+line.K

The most o!tstan4in metho4olo ical ties in M!antitati9e st!4ies o' international relations are 4ata an4 e9i4ence. ?in er 3190># 095 lon a o 4rew the 4istinction )etween K4ataK an4 mere 'acts or in'ormation# 1ntil 'acts are +rocesse4 into 4ataJ there can )e no 4ata anal2sis. . . . Data makin J or the con9ersion o' 'acts an4 in'ormation into a 'orm s!ita)le 'or scienti'ic +!r+osesJ is essentiall2 a screenin an4 classi'2in +rocess . . . 'iltere4 thro! h a 9ariet2 o' conce+t!al screens a++ro+riate to ones theoretical nee4s. "ll the works !n4er re9iew hereJ an4 those which ma2 )e la)elle4 KM!antitati9eK international relationsJ ha9e taken the necessar2 ste+ o' con9ertin K'actsK into 4ata. These 4ata constit!te the em+irical e9i4ence !se4 'or the acce+tance or rePection o' conten4in i4easJ +ro+ositionsJ mo4elsJ or theories 3see Cones an4 ?in erJ 19A2# :5. D!antitati9e st!4ies are )o!n4 )2 the !se o' em+irical e9i4ence to esta)lish the 9ali4it2 o' a st!42Hs 'in4in sJ in 4istinction 'rom the selecti9e !se o' exam+les to this en4 3T!ckerJ 19A2# >5. C"8D CONT*N1/? To re9iew the on oin 4isc!ssion o' theor2 in international relations in all its m2ria4 'orms wo!l4 )e an enc2clo+e4ic task in itsel'.16 *n its 9ario!s 'ormsJ it has encom+asse4 the M!estions o' what Ktheor2K mi ht )eJ what Kinternational relationsK an4 *8 theor2 mi ht )eJ how one oes a)o!t ettin itJ what are the K)estK wa2s 3an4 also the least +ro4!cti9e wa2s5 o' ettin itJ what the state o' international relations theor2 mi ht )e at an2 i9en timeJ an4 e9en whether or not it is necessar2 to 4e9elo+ theor2 in or4er to 4o whate9er it is that scholars st!42in international relations sho!l4 )e 4oin . "s %cClellan4 319A2# 205 notes# +The theory of international relations remains an indefinite topic with its tricky aspects.+ * wo!l4 likeJ +erha+s ar)itraril2J to 4irect m2 comments to the M!estion o' what +lace M!antitati9e metho4olo 2 has ha4 in the +rocess o' 4e9elo+in theor2 in *8. *n all 'airnessJ * sho!l4 +ro9i4e some in4ication o' what * take theor2 to )e. "'ter %eehan 3190># 126.:05J * see theor2 to mean an ex+lanator2 4e9ice which s2stematicall2 )rin s to ether an4 relates Kisolate4 o)ser9a)le +henomena.K * take a theor2 to )e a eneraliOation or set o' eneraliOations. &eneral statements Kclassi'2 o)ser9a)les accor4in to their +ro+ertiesJ an4 a classi'ication s2stem is the sim+lest 'orm o' sin le ste+ ex+lanation. <artic!lar e9ents are ex+laine4 )2 _)rin in them !n4erH the eneral statements in the classi'ication s2stemJ 4e4!cti9el2 or in some other wa2K 3%eehanJ 190># 1265. %ore than a +ath to ex+lanationJ oo4 theor2 also !i4es researchJ s! estin new relation;shi+s an4 eneraliOations 3%eehanJ 190># 1:05. Theor2 in international relations has )een criticiOe4 'or its 'ail!re to take the 'orm o' an o9erarchin eneral theor2 or K+ara4i mKR the cross;national 'iel4 has similarl2 )een taken to task )2 =olt an4 8ichar4son 319A05. ?in er an4 ConesJ the 8!ssettJ an4 &illes+ie an4 Nes9ol4 collections ill!strate the Kislan4s o' theor2K nat!re o' international relationsJ an4 es+eciall2 as st!4ie4 )2 M!antitati9e means. 1;*owe9erJ Cones an4 ?in er also +resent the 'in4in s )ase4 on s!ch islan4sJ an4 the rowin interconnecte4ness o' islan4s into lar erJ more com+rehensi9eJ an4 c!m!lati9e )o4ies o' 4escri+tion an4 ex+lanation. This can )e seen thro! h the connection o' re'erencesJ an4 the strin s o' a)stracts !sin res!lts 'rom othersJ corro)oratin the res!lts o' othersJ the !se o' se9eral 'rameworks s+annin a 9ariet2 o' worksJ s!ch as 'iel4 theor2J stat!s theor2J 'r!stration;a ression mo4elsJ +erce+tion 'rameworksJ an4 others.

Violation# N!clear "cci4ents

2NC
N1C7/"8 "CC*D/NT? 7*T/8"T18/ *? NOT V/8E D1"NT*F*"B7/
?echser 09 INO# To44 ?. ?echserJ 1ni9ersit2 o' Vir inia (?ho!l4 the 1nite4 ?tates or the *nternational Comm!nit2 " ressi9el2 <!rs!e N!clear Non+roli'eration <oliciesW No., *n <eter %. =aasJ Cohn ". =ir4J an4 Beth %cBratne2J e4s.J Contro9ersies in &lo)aliOation# Conten4in "++roaches to *nternational 8elations. $ashin tonJ DC# CD <ress 320095L IctL DO N/"8;%*??/? CO1NTW The e9i4ence in the +re9io!s section tells a ainst the 9iew that the s+rea4 o' n!clear wea+ons en en4ers insta)ilit2. Eet +roli'eration +essimists nonetheless +oint to a 9er2 lar e )o42 o' em+irical s!++ort 'or their ar !ments. Thro! h 2ears o' +ainstakin archi9al researchJ scholars s!ch as Br!ce &. Blair 3199.5J <eter D. Fea9er 3199A5J an4 es+eciall2 ?cott D. ?a an 3199:5 ha9e amasse4 an extraor4inar2 collection o' (near;catastro+hes,Vinci4ents that almost res!lte4 in n!clear acci4ents or o!tri ht n!clear warVthat occ!rre4 in the 1nite4 ?tatesJ ChinaJ *n4iaJ <akistanJ an4 elsewhere 4!rin the Col4 $ar an4 a'terwar4. ?a an an4 Cosh $e44leJ 'or instanceJ write o' militar2 o''icers who so! ht to +ro9oke war with as+irin n!clear ri9alsJ or aniOational misste+s that ina49ertentl2 le't n!clear 'orces 9!lnera)le to attackJ an4 )l!n4ers that nearl2 le4 to acci4ental n!clear 4etonations or la!nches.: $hile 4o!)tless worrisomeJ n!clear near;misses are ins!''icient to corro)orate +roli'eration +essimism )eca!se the2 +ro9i4e no in'ormation a)o!t the risk o' act!al acci4ents. Consi4er the 'ollowin analo 2. *ma ine that an ins!rance com+an2 o''icial is assi ne4 to e9al!ate the acci4ent risk 'or cars that !se a +artic!lar )ran4 o' tires. "'ter inter9iewin c!stomers who ha9e !se4 these tires 'or man2 2earsJ she writes a re+ort concl!4in that clients !sin the tires in the '!t!re will s!''er a hi h risk o' acci4ents. ?he )ases her concl!sion on re+orts that c!stomersT cars sometimes ski44e4 while takin ti ht t!rns or when sto++in ra+i4l2J altho! h none o' the c!stomers in her st!42 e9er ex+erience4 an act!al crash. $o!l4 the researcherTs concl!sion )e a reasona)le in'erence 'rom her 4ataW *t wo!l4 not. The reason is that in the researcherTs sam+leJ ex+eriencin ski44in Vthat isJ a (near;acci4ent,Vwas not in 'act associate4 with a hi her likelihoo4 o' an act!al acci4ent. Cars that ski44e4 ha4 exactl2 the same likelihoo4 3Oero5 o' )ein in9ol9e4 in a crash as those that 4i4 not ski4. $itho!t ha9in st!4ie4 an2 act!al crashesJ the researcher can 4raw no in'erences a)o!t the relationshi+ )etween ski44in an4 acci4ents. *t ma2 seem like common sense to ass!me that ski44in cars ha9e a reater likelihoo4 o' crashin J )!t int!ition is no s!)stit!te 'or em+irical 4ata. *n4ee4J P!st the o++osite mi ht )e tr!e# +erha+s ski44in +ro9i4es s!ch a Polt to 4ri9ers that the2 )ecome more ca!tio!s an4 att!ne4 to roa4 con4itions as a res!lt o' the ski4J there)2 makin a s!)seM!ent crash less likel2. ?o it is with the st!42 o' n!clear +roli'eration. ?ince none o' the close calls in the sam+le collecte4 )2 +roli'eration +essimists le4 to an act!al n!clear 4et; onationJ it is ina++ro+riate to in'er that close calls raise the likelihoo4 o' n!clear acci4ents.. The onl2 concl!sion s!++orte4 )2 s!ch 4ata is that states +ossessin n!clear wea+ons ha9e a reater likelihoo4 o' near;misses than non;n!clear states. B!t near;missesJ while 4ramatic an4 !nner9in J are !ltimatel2 o' little conseM!ence i' the2 ne9er escalate to o!tri ht catastro+hes. " common res+onse to this criticism hol4s that e9en a tin2 risk o' n!clear catastro+he is s!''icient to P!sti'2 a +olic2 o' !ni9ersal non+roli'eration. This is a sta erin )!r4en o' +roo'J an4 it is 'lawe4 'or two reasons. One reason is that scholars have not actually demonstrated that the risk of nuclear accidents or inadvertent nuclear war in a proliferated world is greater than zero. O' co!rseJ the a)sence o' n!clear catastro+he in the +ast 4oes not ass!re its a)sence in the '!t!re. B!t theories !ltimatel2 aim to +re4ict real;worl4 o!t;comesJ an4 4es+ite !nearthin a 9al!a)le tro9e o' n!clear near;missesJ the theor2 o' +roli'eration +essimism has not s!ccee4e4 in accom+lishin this task. To )e s!reJ existin research has shown that the theor2Ts +re4icte4 ca!sal mechanismsVthat isJ or aniOational )iases an4 misha+sVha9e a++eare4 in or aniOations that han4le n!clear wea+onsJ )!t these mechanismsJ thank'!ll2J ha9e ne9er +ro4!ce4 the theor2Ts +re4icte4 o!tcomes. ?a'e !ar4s an4 cooler hea4s ha9e alwa2s +re9aile4Val)eit sometimes at the last min!te. ?econ4J the a++ro+riate M!estion is not whether the s+rea4 o' n!clear wea+ons wo!l4 res!lt in an2 n!clear 4isastersJ )!t whether a worl4 with +roli'eration wo!l4 on )alance )e more +eace'!l an4 more sta)le than a worl4 witho!t it. *n other wor4sJ we m!st ask# will the ains o!twei h the costsW /9en i' one o' the terri)le e9ents 'eare4 )2 +roli'eration +essimists 4oes occ!r at some +oint in the '!t!re 3as in4ee4 it ma25J this o!tcome will not necessaril2 im+l2 that the costs o' +roli'eration o!twei h the )ene'its. *' the s+rea4 o' n!clear wea+ons also wo!l4 +re9ent n!mero!s con9entional warsJ then it ma2 )e entirel2 reasona)le to concl!4e that the net o9erall )ene'it P!sti'ies a more relaxe4 non+roli'eration +olic2. *n 4eci4in whether n!clear +roli'eration wo!l4 )e sta)iliOin or 4esta)iliOin 'or international +oliticsJ it is not eno! h to merel2 +oint o!t that risks existVone m!st wei h those risks a ainst +otential rewar4s. " 'inal o)Pection to this critiM!e hol4s that the n!clear a e has not 2et +ro9i4e4 eno! h 4ata to test theories o' +roli'eration. *n other wor4sJ it is sim+l2 too earl2 to e9al!ate the theoriesT +re4ictions 3see ?a an 199:J 125. This ar !ment is !n+ers!asi9e. The n!clear a e is now more than sixt2 2ears ol4J an4 more than a 4oOen nations ha9e +ossesse4 n!clear wea+ons at one time or another. *' we ima ine that e9er2 o+erational n!clear warhea4 in existence +ro9i4esJ sa2J one (4isaster o++ort!nit2, +er 2earJ then since 19.> there ha9e )een nearl2 two million o++ort!nities 'or an acci4ental ex+losionJ +reem+ti9e n!clear strikeJ n!clear terrorist attackJ or +re9enti9e war a ainst an emer in +roli'erator. "t the 9er2 leastJ the 'act that none o' these scenarios has 2et occ!rre4 sho!l4 s! est that the risk is low eno! h to warrant a +la!si)le cost;)ene'it case a ainst !ni9ersal non+roli'eration. O' co!rseJ the a)sence o' a n!clear catastro+he to 4ate 4oes not (+ro9e, that +roli'eration +essimism is wron . B!t it is im+ortant that we reco niOe the shar+ limits to the in'erential le9era e that near;misses +ro9i4e. /ach 2ear that +asses witho!t a +reem+ti9e n!clear attackJ +re9enti9e war a ainst an as+irin n!clear +owerJ n!clear acci4entJ or act o' n!clear terrorism m!st cast a44itional 4o!)t on the theor2. 1ltimatel2J +roli'eration +essimism remains )!r4ene4 )2 the contrast )etween the !)iM!it2 o' or aniOational +atholo ies an4 the a)sence o' the 4isastro!s n!clear o!tcomes it ex+ects them to ca!se. This a+ sho!l4 make !s ske+tical o' its claims.

2NC /4!cation
2NC %o4!le
$/ CONT8O7 T=/ B/?T *NT/8N"7 TO /D1C"T*ON "5 /<*?T/%O7O&E C188/NT D/B"T/ *? T/8%*N"77E F7"$/D <O7*CE D/B"T/8? 8/"D D*?"D? "ND "DV"NT"&/? $*T= 8*D*C17O1? *NT/8N"7 7*NK? T="T 7"1&="B7E ?1<<O?/ /V/8E "CT*ON /ND? T=/ $O87D. T=*? (*%<"CT;F*8?T, F8"%/$O8K FO8 D/B"T/ ="? 8/D1C/D 1? TO %"&*C*"N? OF T=/ *%<8OB"B7/ "ND /G</8T? OF NOT=*N&. NON/ OF $="T T=/E ?"E *? T81/ B/C"1?/ NON/ OF *T *? %/T=ODO7O&*C"77E ?O1ND. B5 O18 /GT/8N"7 *%<"CT *? $"8 CO17O%B 06 ?"E? $/"K D"T" <O7*CE%"K*N& $*77 &1*D/ 1? *NTO *88"T*ON"7 D/C*?*ON? "ND /?C"7"T*ON /N18*N& $%D CONF7*CT 1N7/?? $/ C8/"T/ *NC/NT*V/? FO8 D/B"T/ OV/8 ?T8ON& D"T" TO OCC18 OV/8 "8%? CONT8O7.

3 5 /D1C"T*ON O1T$/*&=? F"*8N/?? *T %"E B/ </8F/CT7E F"*8 TO ="V/ D/B"T/? OV/8 N1 V/8?1? N2 </NC*7? B1T $/ DONHT ="V/ *T B/C"1?/ *T? /D1C"T*ON"77E B"NK81<T T8"*N*N& %1?T TO 8/7/V"NT 1? O8 $/ $ONHT DO *T.

"T# Tetlock <re4ictions &oo4

"t# Tetlock
2NC
T/T7OCK CONC71D/? N/& =*? ?T1DE OF :00 /G</8T? FO1ND T=/E $/8/ $O8?/ T="N " CO%<1T/8 D/?*&N/D TO <8/D*CT (NO C="N&/, "ND ON7E ?7*&=T7E B/TT/8 T="N %ONK/E? T=8O$*N& D"8T?. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L T/T7OCK# *n the en4 we ha4 close to three h!n4re4 +artici+ants. "n4 the2 were 9er2 so+histicate4 +olitical o)ser9ers. Virt!all2 all o' them ha4 some +ost; ra4!ate e4!cation. 8o! hl2 two;thir4s o' them ha4 <hDs. The2 were lar el2 +olitical scientistsJ )!t there were some economists an4 a 9ariet2 o' other +ro'essionals as well. D1BN/8# "n4 the2 all +artici+ate4 in 2o!r st!42 anon2mo!sl2J correctW T/T7OCK# That was a 9er2 im+ortant con4ition 'or o)tainin coo+eration. D1BN/8# NowJ i' the2 were not anon2mo!s then +res!ma)l2 we wo!l4 reco niOe some o' their namesJ these are +rominent +eo+le at +olitical science 4e+artmentsJ economics 4e+artments at *Tm !essin some o' the )etter !ni9ersities aro!n4 the worl4J is that ri htW T/T7OCK# $ellJ * 4onTt want to sa2 too m!ch moreJ )!t * think 2o! wo!l4 reco niOe some o' themJ 2es. * think some o' them ha4 s!)stantial &oo le co!nts. ?CD N"88# The st!42 )ecame the )asis o' a )ook Tetlock +!)lishe4 a 'ew 2ears a oJ calle4 (/x+ert <olitical C!4 ment., There were two maPor ro!n4s o' 4ata collectionJ the 'irst )e innin in 1966J the other in 1992. These nearl2 :00 ex+erts were aske4 to make +re4ictions a)o!t 4oOens o' co!ntries aro!n4 the worl4. The M!estions were m!lti+le choice. For instance# *n Democrac2 G V letTs sa2s itTs /n lan4 V sho!l4 we ex+ect that a'ter the next electionJ the c!rrent maPorit2 +art2 will retainJ loseJ or stren then its stat!sW OrJ 'or 1n4emocratic Co!ntr2 E V / 2+tJ ma2)e V sho!l4 we ex+ect the )asic character o' the +olitical re ime to chan e in the next 'i9e 2earsW *n the next 10 2earsW an4 i' soJ in what 4irectionW "n4 to what e''ectW The ex+erts ma4e +re4ictions within their areas o' ex+ertiseJ an4 o!tsi4eR an4 the2 were aske4 to rate their con'i4ence 'or their +re4ictions. ?o a'ter trackin the acc!rac2 o' a)o!t 60J000 +re4ictions )2 some :00 ex+erts o9er the co!rse o' 20 2earsJ <hili+ Tetlock 'o!n4# T/T7OCK# That ex+erts tho! ht the2 knew more than the2 knew. That there was a s2stematic a+ )etween s!)Pecti9e +ro)a)ilities that ex+erts were assi nin to +ossi)le '!t!res an4 the o)Pecti9e likelihoo4s o' those '!t!res materialiOin . D1BN/8# 7et me translate that 'or 2o!. The ex+erts were +rett2 aw'!l. "n4 2o! think# aw'!l com+are4 to whatW Di4 the2 )eat a monke2 with a 4art)oar4W T/T7OCK# OhJ the monke2 with a 4art)oar4 com+arisonJ that comes )ack to ha!nt me all the time. B!t with res+ect to how the2 4i4 relati9e toJ sa2J a )aseline ro!+ o' Berkele2 !n4er ra4!ates makin +re4ictionsJ the2 4i4 somewhat )etter than that. Di4 the2 4o )etter than an extra+olation al orithmW NoJ the2 4i4 not. The2 4i4 'or the most +art a little )it worse than that. =ow 4i4 the2 4o relati9e to +!rel2 ran4om !essin strate 2W $ellJ the2 4i4 a little )it )etter than thatJ )!t not as m!ch as 2o! mi ht ho+e. D1BN/8# That (extra+olation al orithm, that Tetlock mentione4W ThatTs sim+l2 a com+!ter +ro ramme4 to +re4ict (no chan e in c!rrent sit!ation., ?o it t!rne4 o!t these smartJ ex+erience4J con'i4ent ex+erts +re4icte4 the +olitical '!t!re a)o!t as wellJ i' not sli htl2 worseJ than the a9era e 4ail2 rea4er o' The New Eork Times. C"8D CONT*N1/? D1BN/8# 7et me rea4 somethin that 2o! ha9e sai4 or written in the +ast. (This 4etermination to 'erret o!t or4er 'rom chaos has ser9e4 o!r s+ecies well. $eTre all )ene'iciaries o' o!r reat collecti9e s!ccesses in +!rs!it o' 4eterministic re !larities in mess2 +henomena V a ric!lt!reJ anti)ioticsJ an4 co!ntless other in9entions., ?o talk to me 'or a moment a)o!t the 9al!e o' +re4iction. O)9io!sl2 thereTs m!ch has )een aine4J m!ch to )e aine4. Do we o9er9al!e +re4iction tho! hJ +erha+sW T/T7OCK# * think thereTs an as2mmetr2 o' s!++l2 an4 4eman4. * think there is an enormo!s 4eman4 'or acc!rate +re4ictions in man2 s+heres o' li'e in which we 4onTt ha9e the reM!isite ex+ertise to 4eli9er. "n4 when 2o! ha9e that kin4 o' a+ )etween 4eman4 an4 real s!++l2 2o! et the in'!sion o' 'ake s!++l2.

"T# Tetlock <re4ictions &oo4

"T# 7earn 'rom False <re4ictions
2NC
<8/D*CT*ON? DONHT T"K/ <7"C/ *N " N/1T8"7 F*/7D T=/ F"CT T="T <8/D*CT*ON? =/7< ?="</ 8/"7*TE *? " N/& NOT "FF "8& B/C"1?/ *T %"K/? B8*B/8E "ND %"N*<17"T*ON F"8 %O8/ 7*7K/7E. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L D1BN/8# ?o this so!n4s +rett2 strai ht'orwar4J ri htW Com+are4 to +re4ictin somethin like the +olitical or economic '!t!reJ estimatin corn 2iel4 )ase4 on constant +h2sical meas!rements o' corn +lants is +rett2 sim+le. /xce+t 'or one thin . *tTs calle4 the weather. $eather remains so har4 to +re4ict in the lon term that the 1?D" 4oesnTt e9en !se 'orecastsR it !ses historic a9era es instea4. D1BN/8# ?o CoeJ talk to me a)o!t what ha++ene4 last 2ear with the 1?D" corn 'orecast. Eo! m!st ha9e known this was comin 'rom me. ?o the $all ?treet Co!rnalTs hea4line was# (1?D" Fl!)s in <re4ictin Corn Cro+s., /x+lain what ha++ene4. <81?"CK*# $ellJ this is the weather 'actor that came into +la2. *t t!rne4 o!t +rett2 hot an4 +rett2 4r2 in most o' the rowin re ion. "n4 * ha4 aske4 a 'ew 'olks that are o!t an4 a)o!t in *owa what ha++ene4. The2 sai4 this is P!st a reall2 stran e 2ear. $e P!st 4onTt know. NowJ when i' someone sa2s 4i4 we 'l!) itW * 4onTt know. *t was the 'orecast )ase4 on the in'ormation * ha4 as 'or "! !st 1. NowJ ?e+tem)er 1J * ha4 a 4i''erent set o' in'ormation. Octo)er 1J * ha4 a 4i''erent set o' in'ormation. Co!l4 we ha9e 4i4 a )etter Po)W D1BN/8# " lot o' +eo+le tho! ht the2 co!l4 ha9e. 7ast C!neJ the 1?D" lowere4 its estimate o' corn stock+ilesR an4 in Octo)erJ it c!t its estimate o' corn 2iel4. "'ter the 'irst re+ortJ the +rice o' corn s+ike4 9 +ercent. The secon4 re+ortW "nother 0 +ercent. Coe <r!sacki ot M!ite a 'ew e;mails# <81?"CK*# OKJ the 'irst one isJ this was# (Thanks a lot 'or colla+sin the rain market to4a2 with 2o!r st!+i4San4 the wor4 is three lettersJ )e ins with an (a, an4 then it has two 4ollar si ns S 1?D" re+ort. ("s )a4 as the stench o' 4ea4 )o4ies in =aiti m!st )eJ it canTt e9en com+are to the 'o!l stench o' corr!+tion emanatin 'rom o!r 'e4eral o9ernment in $ashin ton DC., D1BN/8# *t strikes me that thereTs room 'or tro!)le here in that 2o!r 'orecasts are !se4 )2 a lot o' 4i''erent +eo+le who en a e in a lot o' 4i''erent marketsJ an4 2o!r research can mo9e markets. *Tm won4erin what kin4 o' )ri)es ma2)e come 2o!r wa2W <81?"CK*# *tTs interestin J * ha9e +eo+le that callJ we call them Y'ishers. The2 call ma2)e a 4a2 or two 4a2s )e'ore when weTre 'inishin o!r work an4 itTs like * tell themJ * sa2J ($h2 4o 2o! 4o thisW $eT9e ha4 this 4isc!ssion )e'ore., ThereTs a co!+le thin sJ one * si n a con'i4entialit2 statement e9er2 2ear that sa2s * shall not release an2 in'ormation )e'ore itTs 4!e time or )a4 thin s ha++en. *tTs a Z100J000 'ine or time in +rison. *tTs like the 4ollar 'ineJ OK. *tTs the +rison +art that )others meX

"T# Fairness
2NC
1. T=*? *?NHT 1NF"*8 *T? NO D*FF/8/NT T="N " C8*T*D1/ *%<"CT C"7C171? T="T TOOK O1T T=/ "FF ="8% "ND ?O7V/NCE. C8E*N& "BO1T NOT B/*N& <8/<"8/D TO D/F/ND T=/ V"7*D*TE OF EO18 "DVOC"CE *? NO D*FF/8/NT T="N C8E*N& "BO1T B/*N& 1N"B7/ TO "N?$/8 T=/ N/$/?T <O7*T*C? ?C/N"8*O O8 N*/TQ?C=/ 8/*NC"8N"T*ON.
$/H8/ <8/D*CT"B7/ T=/ (D"T", F8"%/$O8K ="? B//N "8O1ND FO8 FO18 E/"8? NO$J "ND EO1 C1?T ="V/ TO D/F/ND EO18 %/T=OD OF T81T=. <8/D*CT"B*7*TE *?NTT *%<O8T"NT FO8 F"*8N/?? " D/C"D/ OF C8*T*D1/ "FF? <8OV/ D/B"T/ $*77 ?18V*V/ "ND %"NE "7T/8N"T*V/ C"1?"7*T*/? 7*K/ 8/?O18C/?J *NT/77*&/NC/J CO"C=*N&J "ND 8/< $*77 OFF?/T T=/ D"%"&/

2. :.

..

D1"NT*F*C"T*ON *? T=/ B/?T *NT/8N"7 7*NK TO F"*8N/?? O18 F8"%/$O8K <8OV*D/? T=/ %O?T <8/D*CT"B7/ "ND F"*8 $"E TO CO%</T/

Cit2 o' T!cson 9A Icit2 o' t!csonHs res+onse to the stran4e4 cost workin ro!+ re+ortL IctL Ihtt+#//www.cc.state.aO.!s/4i9isions/!tilities/workin /stran4;0.htmL The 8e+ortHs +osition on this iss!e sho!l4 )e reexamine4. "n2 s!)seM!ent 4isc!ssion o' stran4e4 costs sho!l4 incl!4e a '!ll 4isc!ssion o' the +res!me4 ri hts o' the "''ecte4 1tilities to reco9er2. Coinci4ent with that 4isc!ssion sho!l4 )e a 4isc!ssion o' the M!anti'ie4 stran4e4 costs !n4er consi4erationJ e9en i' in the 'orm a +reliminar2 estimateJ or ran e o' estimates. There is no a)ilit2 to a! e the 'airnessJ or en4 res!lt that is the +!r+ose o' the re !lator2 +rocess witho!t s!ch M!anti'ication to !i4e +olic2;makin . This lea4s to a secon4 threshol4 to+ic reM!irin comment. B. ?tran4e4 Cost /stimates an4 <!)lic <olic2 %akin %em)ers o' the $orkin &ro!+ also reM!este4 thatJ as +art o' the $orkin &ro!+Hs acti9itiesJ the "''ecte4 1tilities sho!l4 +er'orm an4 make a9aila)le estimates o' their retail stran4e4 costs. &i9en that the '!nction o' re !lation is to +ro9i4e a 'air o!tcomeJ an4 that +olic2 recommen4ations )2 the $orkin &ro!+ nee4 to )e )ase4 on a clear !n4erstan4in o' the +ossi)le im+acts o' certain +olic2 choicesJ this reM!est was eminentl2 reasona)le. =owe9erJ the ?ta'' 4i4 not s!++ort this reM!est an4 +ro9i4e4 'i9e reasons to s!++ort its 4ecision.15 The Ko9erri4in o)Pecti9e o' this $orkin &ro!+ is to 4e9elo+ recommen4ations 'or 8!les co9erin the +roce4!res to )e !se4 in connection with the M!anti'ication an4 reco9er2 o' stran4e4 costsJ not an act!al M!anti'ication o' stran4e4 costs.K "s note4 a)o9eJ the +!r+ose o' re !lation is to +ro9i4e a 'air o!tcome. *t is not reasona)le to ex+ect that metho4s 4etermine4 in isolation 'rom an !n4erstan4in o' relati9e im+acts will +ro4!ce a reasona)le an4 'air o!tcome. 'n fact, not addressing quantification of outcome for policy#making ,eopardizes the opportunity to produce policies that will result in a fair outcome. *n4ee4J i' !tilities ha9e 4i''erin ass!m+tionsJ or coinci4ent ass!m+tions within their +reliminar2 estimatesJ it wo!l4 hel+ to clari'2 an4 a49ance 4isc!ssion. *t is reasona)le to ex+ect that the M!anti'ications 4isc!sse4 in the $orkin &ro!+ wo!l4 not )e 'inal n!m)ers. *t is also reasona)le to ex+ect that 4e9elo+ment o' 'inal n!m)ers will onl2 come thro! h s+eci'ic 4isc!ssion o' +reliminar2 estimates an4 s+eci'ic +olicies that ma2 )e 4etermine4 )ase4 in +art on those estimates. ?ettin +olic2 on calc!lation metho4olo 2 an4 +re'erre4 ass!m+tions +rior to s!)mission o' the 'ormal estimates 4!e )2 Can!ar2 1J 1999 serio!sl2 Peo+ar4iOes so!n4 +olic2makin an4 the res!ltin im+act on the e''ecti9eness or 9ia)ilit2 o' a com+etiti9e retail market.

>.

/D1C"T*ON O1T$/*&=? D*?8/&"8D <7/"? TO C1D&/ (NO8%"77E, O8 (F"*8N/??, B/C"1?/ T=/E "8/ 8*&&/D TO ?E?T/%"T*C"77E /GC71D/ T=/ ?1FF/8*N& OF T=/ %"8&*N"7*Q/D

=ar4in 9> I?an4ra De+artments o' <hiloso+h2J 1ni9ersit2 o' DelawareJ NewarkJ D/ U 1C7"J Cali'ornia Can 'eminist tho! ht make economics more o)Pecti9eW Feminist /conomics 1#1J A ; :2 01 %arch 199>L IctL ?ome elements in the notion ori inate in "ristotleHs tho! htR others ha9e arisen in the last 'ew 4eca4es. =owe9erJ Kol4er !sa es remain +ower'!lK 3i)i4.# 25J an4 are calle4 !+ to4a2 whene9er +eo+le are str! lin to 4etermine who sho!l4 et to 4eci4e what co!nts as a 9ali4 exercise o' reason. "s 8o)ert <roctorJ the a!thor o' the other histor2J +!ts the +oint a)o!t the ne!tralit2 i4eal that )oth he an4 No9ick note has alwa2s )een reM!ire4 o' an2thin 4eser9in the la)el Ko)Pecti9eJK Kthe i4eal o' 9al!e;ne!tralit2 is not a sin le notionJ )!t has arisen in the co!rse o' +rotracte4 str! les o9er the +lace that science sho!l4 ha9e in societ2K 3<roctor 1991# 2025. Both No9ick an4 <roctor +oint o!t that assertin o)Pecti9it2 sometimes has )een !se4 to a49ance an4 sometimes to retar4 the rowth o' knowle4 eJ an4 the same can )e sai4 o' assertions o' the relati9ism that is ima ine4 3'alsel2J * )elie9e5 to )e the onl2 alternati9e to it. Neither +osition a!tomaticall2 can claim the scienti'ic hi h; ro!n4. Nor 4oes either ass!re the +olitical hi h; ro!n4J 'or each has )een !se4 at some times to )lock social P!stice an4 at other times to a49ance it. "s <roctor +!ts the +ointJ ne!tralit2J the central reM!irement o' the con9entional notionJ has )een !se4 as Km2thJ maskJ shiel4 an4 swor4K 3<roctor 1966# 2025. %2 'oc!s on the notion will )e on the scienti'ic +roce4!res an4 metho4s s!++ose4 to sec!re o)Pecti9it2. $i4es+rea4 criticisms in 'eministJ anti;racistJ +ostcolonial an4 other mo9ements 'or a49ancin 4emocrac2 ha9e ar !e4 that s2stematicall2 4istorte4 res!lts o' research are the conseM!ence not onl2 o' carelessness an4 ina4eM!ate ri or in 'ollowin existin metho4s an4 norms 'or maximiOin o)Pecti9it2 in research +racticesJ )!tJ more im+ortantl2J o' !nnecessar2 limitations in how those metho4s an4 norms are conce+t!aliOe4 in the 'irst +lace. "s note4 earlierJ their +artic!lar 'oc!s is on the 'act that where +ara4i msJ conce+t!al 'rame; worksJ an4 e+istemes constit!te scienti'ic +ro)lems in the 'irst +laceJ +re9ailin stan4ar4s 'or oo4 +roce4!res 'or maximiOin o)Pecti9it2 are %&& 'eak to )e a)le to i4enti'2 the kin4s o' c!lt!re;wi4e ass!m+tions that ha9e sha+e4 the initial selection o' those +roce4!res as oo4 ones.
.. $/"K OBC/CT*V*TE# D*?"B7/D BE T=/ N/1T8"7*TE *D/"7H $hen the 9al!es an4 interests to )e i4enti'ie4 )2 researchers are those that 4i''er )etween in4i9i4!al researchers or e9en reco niOe4 research comm!nitiesJ the ne!tralit2 i4eal can )e !se'!l. =ere 'eminists ha9e stresse4 that it has not )een 9i oro!sl2 eno! h +!rs!e4. 3*t has its limits hereJ too. %2 +oint is onl2 that it also has its !ses.5 B!t when c!lt!re;wi4e 9al!es an4 interests sha+e research +roPectsJ the ne!tralit2 i4eal is not P!st !selessR e9en worseJ it )ecomes +art o' the +ro)lem. *t 4e'en4s an4 le itimates the instit!tions an4 +ractices thro! h which the 4istortions an4 their o'ten ex+loitati9e conseM!ences are enerate4. *t certi'ies as normalJ nat!ralJ an4 there'ore not +olitical at allJ the +olicies an4 +ractices thro! h which +ower'!l ro!+s can ain the in'ormation an4 ex+lanations that the2 nee4 to a49ance their +riorities. "s two 'eminist +ostcolonial critics +!t the +ointJ mo4ern scienceHs 4aime4 ne!tralit2 is Ka +olitics o' 4is9al!in local concerns an4 knowle4 e an4 le itimatin _o!tsi4e ex+ertsKH 3Ca2antan!Pa Ban42o+a4h2a2a an4 Van4ana ?hi9a 1966#005. ?!ch in'ormation an4 ex+lanations ma2 well KworkK in the sense o' ena)lin +re4iction an4 control. =owe9erJ this o)9io!s 'act 4oes not en4 the matter. One 'orm o' ex+lanation that KworksK ma2 at the same time o)sc!re or 4raw attention awa2 'rom other re !larities an4 their ca!ses that wo!l4 s! est other +ossi)ilities 'or or aniOin nat!re an4 social relations. One can et in'ormation a)o!t the nat!ral an4 social or4er that makes +ossi)le the acc!m!lation o' wealth )2 the 'ew an4 miser2 )2 the man2J or other in'ormation that makes +ossi)le the eM!ita)le 4istri)!tion o' means to satis'2 )asic h!man nee4s 'or 'oo4J shelterJ healthJ work an4 P!st social relations. %oreo9erJ the re !larities o' nat!re an4 social relations that make +ossi)le healin a )o42J chartin the starsJ or minin ores ma2 )e ex+laine4 in wa2s +ermittin extensi9eJ tho! h not i4enticalJ +re4iction an4 control within ra4icall2 4i''erent an4 e9en con'lictin J c!lt!rall2 localJ ex+lanator2 mo4els. The kin4s o' ex+lanations 'a9ore4 )2 mo4ern science are not necessaril2 the most e''ecti9e ones 'or all +roPects 'or exam+leJ 'or achie9in en9ironmental )alanceJ +re9entin chronic )o4il2 mal'!nctions or 4istri)!tin access to scarce reso!rces 'airl2. The 'act that societies with massi9e in9estments o' +!)lic reso!rces in nat!ral an4 social science research ha9e not )een intereste4 to +rioritiOe s!ch '!n4amental h!man +ro)lems is itsel' ill!minatin . K*t worksK is no !arantee that KitK

works 'or ex+lainin all o' nat!reHs re !larities an4 their !n4erl2in ca!sal ten4enciesJ that KitK is the onl2 reasona)le ex+lanation o' a i9en +henomenonJ or that KitK 4oes not also enerate s2stematic i norance. K*t worksK is no !arantee o' c!lt!ral ne!tralit2
3c'. =ar4in 199.J 'orthcomin )5. This kin4 o' ar !ment is wi4es+rea4 in 1.?. anti;racist anal2ses an4 in the +ostcolonial science st!4ies an4 4e9elo+ment literat!reJ incl!4in m!ch work now enerate4 !n4er 1.N. a!s+ices as that instit!tion tries to ras+ wh2 'ort2 2ears o' conce+t!aliOin K4e9elo+mentK +rimaril2 as a matter o' science an4 technolo 2 trans'er 'rom North to ?o!th has lar el2 res!lte4 in the 4e4e9elo+ment 3an4 worse5 'or the 9ast maPorit2 o' the ?o!thHs +eo+les. 3C'. Vernon Dixon 19A0R ?!san Feiner 199.R &oonatilake 196.R =ar4in 199:J 199.J 'orthcomin )R Nan42 1990R <etitPean e% al( 1992R 1NC?TD 'orthcomin .5 The ne!tralit2 i4eal '!nctions more thro! h what its normaliOin +roce4!res an4 conce+ts im+licitl2 +rioritiOe than thro! h ex+licit 4irecti9es. This kin4 o' +olitics reM!ires no in'orme4 consent )2 those who exercise itJ )!t onl2 that scientists )e Kcom+an2 menK 3an4 women5J 'ollowin the +re9ailin r!les o' scienti'ic instit!tions an4 their intellect!al tra4itions. This normaliOin +olitics 'reM!entl2 4e'ines the o)Pections o' its 9ictims an4 an2 criticisms o' its instit!tionsJ +ractices or conce+t!al worl4 as a itation )2 s+ecial interests that threatens to 4ama e the ne!tralit2 o' science an4 its Kci9iliOin missionJK as an earlier eneration saw the matter. Th!sJ when sciences are alrea42 in the ser9ice o' the mi ht2J scienti'ic ne!tralit2 ens!res that Kmi ht makes ri ht.K Feminists in e9er2 4isci+line ha9e ar !e4 that an4rocentric Kmi htK has all too o'ten a++eale4 to ne!tralit2;maximiOin stan4ar4s in or4er to P!sti'2 as Kri htK 4istorte4 4escri+tions an4 ex+lanations o' nat!ral an4 social re !larities an4 their !n4erl2in ca!sal ten4encies. $e nee4 a conce+t o' o)Pecti9it2J an4 metho4s 'or maximiOin itJ that ena)le

scienti'ic +roPects to esca+e containment )2 the interests an4 9al!es o' the +ower'!l. This onl2 weak conce+t o' o)Pecti9it2J that remains containe4 )2 the ne!tralit2 i4ealJ canHt 4o it. $hat is the mechanism in scienti'ic +rocesses thro! h which ne!tralit2J an4 th!s o)Pecti9it2J is s!++ose4 to )e maximiOe4W %etho4 is s!++ose4 to Ko+erationaliOeK ne!tralit2 an4J th!sJ achie9e o)Pecti9ist stan4ar4s. =owe9erJ metho4 is conce+t!aliOe4 too narrowl2 to +ermit achie9ement o' this oal. For one thin J metho4 V in the sense in which st!4ents take metho4s co!rses or a research re+ort 4escri)es its metho4s V is conce+t!aliOe4 as '!nctionin onl2 in the context o' P!sti'ication when h2+otheses are )ein teste4. *t comes into +la2 onl2 a'ter a +ro)lem is i4enti'ie4 as a scienti'ic one an4 a'ter central conce+tsJ a h2+othesis

an4 research 4esi n ha9e alrea42 )een selecte4. *t is onl2 a'ter a research +roPect is alrea42 c&ns%i%u%ed that metho4s o' researchJ in this con9entional narrow sense o' the termJ start !+. =owe9erJ as critic a'ter critic has +ointe4 o!tJ it is in the context o' 4isco9er2 that c!lt!re;wi4e ass!m+tions sha+e the 9er2 statement an4 4esi n o' the research +roPectJ an4 there'ore select the metho4s. %oreo9erJ it is well known that the a9aila)ilit2 o' a research technolo 2 that was itsel' selecte4 in earlier contexts o' 4isco9er2 an4 'o!n4 +ro4!cti9e 'reM!entl2 hel+s select which scienti'ic +ro)lems will )e interestin to scientists an4 to '!n4ers 3c'.J e. .J ?trassmann 199:a5. "n4 c!lt!ral interestsJ 9al!es an4 rele9ances alwa2s select which +ro)lems will et to co!nt as im+ortant ones 'or research. O' co!rse in the Kman le o' +racticeK 3"n4rew <ickerin 19915 4!rin the research +rocessJ h2+othesesJ re+resentations o' the o)Pect o' knowle4 e an4 research technolo ies are a4P!ste4 to each other s!ch that an im+ortant element o' o)Pecti9it2 is +ro4!ce4 witho!t the +romise o' total ne!tralit2. The worl4 constrains o!r )elie's witho!t !niM!el2 con'irmin them. The K+ositi9eK ne!tralit2 i4eal has )lin4e4 !s to the costs o' limitin o!r !n4erstanding of +method+ only to techniques that standardize or otherwise obscure the values and interests represented in the results o' research. /9en the 1.?. National "ca4em2 o' ?ciences V certainl2 not a 4en o' wil4;e2e4 ra4icals Vnow ar !es that the notion o' research metho4 sho!l4 )e enlar e4 )e2on4 its 'amiliar meanin o' techniM!es to incl!4e the P!4 ments scientists make a)o!t inter+retation or relia)ilit2 o' 4ataJ ... the 4ecisions scientists make a)o!t which +ro)lems to +!rs!e or when to concl!4e an in9esti ationJ ... the wa2s scientists work with each other an4 exchan e in'ormation. 3National "ca4em2 o' ?ciences 1969# >;05 "ll three o' these ex+ansions o' the notion o' metho4 make clear that metho4s can themsel9es )e selecte4 )eca!se the2 a49ance local social 9al!es an4 interests. Th!s metho4s aime4 onl2 at eliminatin all 9al!es an4 interests 'rom the res!lts o' research ha9e no wa2 o' 4etectin the ones that 'irst constit!te scienti'ic +ro)lemsJ an4 then select central conce+tsJ h2+otheses to )e teste4 an4 research 4esi ns. The iss!e * am raisin is that some normati9e in'l!ences on research e9i4entl2 a49ance the rowth o' knowle4 e an4 others retar4 itJ )!t the K+ositi9istK !n4erstan4in o' metho4 lacks an2 wa2 to i4enti'2 which are whichR moreo9er it is inca+a)le o' 4etectin the most wi4es+rea4 c!lt!ral ass!m+tionsJ s!ch as an4rocentricJ economicall2 elite or /!rocentric onesJ that in9aria)l2 lea4 to onl2 +artial an4 4istorte4 re+resentations o' nat!re an4 social relations. 7et !s a++roach the iss!e one more wa2. One +oint o' re+eatin o)ser9ationsJ thro! h ex+erimental or other techniM!esJ is so that 9ariations in the res!lts o' o)ser9ations can )e scr!tiniOe4 'or the traces o' social interests an4 9al!es which wo!l4 4istort the ima e o' nat!re an4 social relations +ro4!ce4 )2 science. "n2 comm!nit2 that is a comm!nit2J incl!4in the comm!nit2 o' a la)orator2 or 4isci+line as well as other kin4s o' c!lt!ral comm!nitiesJ shares 9al!es an4 interests. B!t i' all o)ser9ers share a +artic!lar 9al!e or interestJ whether this arri9es 'rom the lar er societ2 or is 4e9elo+e4 in the ro!+ o' le itimate4 o)ser9ersJ how is the re+etition o' o)ser9ations )2 these like;min4e4 +eo+le s!++ose4 to re9eal itW *t is not in4i9i4!alJ +ersonalJ Ks!)Pecti9eK error to which 'eminist an4 other social critics o' science ha9e 4rawn attentionJ )!t wi4el2 hel4 an4rocentricJ /!rocentric an4 )o!r eois ass!m+tions that ha9e )een 9irt!all2 c!lt!re;wi4e across the c!lt!re o' science 3c'. ?eiO 199:5. The ass!m+tions o'
<tolemaic astronom2J "ristotelian +h2sicsJ or o' an or anicist worl4;9iew were not '!n4amentall2 +ro+erties o' in4i9i4!als. "ss!m+tions that womenHs )iolo 2J moral reasonJ intelli enceJ contri)!tions to h!man e9ol!tionJ economic well;)ein J or to historical chan e are in'erior to menHs are not i4ios2ncraticall2 hel4 )elie's o' in4i9i4!al Ks!)PectsKR the2 are wi4es+rea4 ass!m+tions o' entire c!lt!res instit!tionaliOe4 in lo)al an4 local +ractices an4 4isco!rses. These ass!m+tions ha9e constit!te4 whole 'iel4s o' st!42J selectin their +reocc!+2in +ro)lemsJ 'a9ore4 conce+tsJ h2+otheses an4 research 4esi nsR these 'iel4s ha9e in t!rn lent s!++ort to male s!+remacist ass!m+tions in other 'iel4s. The iss!e is not '!n4amentall2 that in4i9i4!al men 3an4 women5 ha++en to hol4 'alse )elie'sJ )!t that the conce+t!al str!ct!res o' 4isci+linesJ their instit!tionsJ an4 relate4 social +olicies make less than maximall2 o)Pecti9e ass!m+tions. 7ocal c!lt!resJ not in4i9i4!alsJ are the acti9e a ents o' knowle4 e in these res+ects. $hate9er c!lt!ral )elie's are not criticall2 examine4 will s!rre+titio!sl2 '!nction as e9i4ence 'or the res!lts o' research K)ehin4 the )acksK o' scienti'ic comm!nitiesH most ri oro!s metho4s.H This ar !ment sho!l4 not )e taken to )e claimin that sexism an4 an4rocentrism a''ect onl2 the Kcontext o' 4isco9er2JK 'or the +ro)lems there are exacer)ate4 in the Kcontext o' P!sti'ication.K " theor2 which seems +la!si)le 'rom the +ers+ecti9e o' one social ro!+J an4 +erha+s ser9es its interests as wellJ isnHt likel2 to )e s!)Pecte4 to the kin4 o' Kse9ere criticismKH an4 testin that +hiloso+hers like Karl <o++er 319>95 recommen4. *ts weaknesses sim+l2 wonHt come to li ht )eca!se those who mi ht challen e it lack n!m)ers an4 in'l!ence.H Feminists ha9e note4 how the 9er2 )est mainstream Po!rnals o'ten s!)Pect an4rocentric an4 anti'eminist ar !ments to 'ar less ri oro!s stan4ar4s than the2 4o 'eminist ar !ments.H *n re'lectin on how so m!ch scienti'ic racism an4 sexism co!l4 )e +ro4!ce4 )2 the most 4istin !ishe4 an4J in some casesJ +oliticall2 +ro ressi9e nineteenth; cent!r2 scientistsJ historian o' )iolo 2 ?te+hen Ca2 &o!l4 +!ts the +oint this wa2# * 4o not inten4 to contrast e9il 4eterminists who stra2 'rom the +ath o' scienti'ic o)Pecti9it2 with enli htene4 anti4eterminists who a++roach 4ata with an o+en min4 an4 there'ore see tr!th. 8ather * criticiOe the m2th that science itsel' is an o)Pecti9e enter+riseJ Iin the sense that it isL 4one +ro+erl2 onl2 when scientists can sh!ck the constraints o' their c!lt!re an4 9iew the worl4 as it reall2 is.... ?cienceJ since +eo+le m!st 4o itJ is a sociall2 em)e44e4 acti9it2. *t +ro resses )2 h!nchJ 9isionJ an4 int!ition. %!ch o' its chan e thro! h time 4oes not recor4 a 4oser a++roach to a)sol!te tr!thJ )!t the alteration o' c!lt!ral contexts that in'l!ence it so stron l2. m3&o!l4 1961#21;25

$hen a scienti'ic comm!nit2 shares ass!m+tionsJ there is little chance that more care'!l a++lication o' existin scienti'ic metho4s will 4etect them.K *t is im+ortant that &o!l4Hs re'lection makes clear that not all c!lt!ral interests an4 9al!es 3KcontextsK5 retar4 the rowth o' knowle4 e. ?ome a49ance itJ he is sa2in # science has o'ten +ro resse4 )eca!se o' chan es in its c!lt!ral contexts. ?o it is +ro)lematic that the ne!tralit2 i4eal is s!++ose4 to eliminate all social 9al!es an4 interests. ?!ch an anal2sis lea4s to one o)9io!s +ossi)ilit2# to se+arate the oal o' maximiOin o)Pecti9it2 'rom the ne!tralit2 reM!irement in or4er to i4enti'2 the knowle4 e;limitin 9al!es an4 interests that constit!te +roPects in the 'irst +lace. This +ossi)ilit2 has )een hinte4 at a ain an4 a ain in the criticisms o' weak o)Pecti9it2. $hat we nee4 is a +roce4!re 'or maximiOin o)Pecti9it2 that has the reso!rces to 4etect 3a5 9al!es an4 interests that c&ns%i%u%e scien%i)ic +roPectsR 3)5 that isJ ones that will ten4 n&% %& *ary )etween le itimate4 o)ser9ersR an4 3c5 the 4i''erence )etween those 9al!es an4 interests that enlar e an4 those that limit o!r ima es o' nat!re an4 social relations.

"T# To+ic ?+eci'ic /4!

2NC
1.
2. :.

TO<*C ?</C*F*C /D1C"T*ON DO/?NHT /G*?T ; <O7*T*C?J "&/NT C<?J "ND "FF? F8O% T=/ /18O</ TO<*C <8OV/ D/B"T/ $*77 "7$"E? ?=*FT TO$"8D F"%*7*"8 FO/?.
$/ <8OD1C/ TO<*C ?</C*F*C D/B"T/? $/ C1?T 8/D1*8/ B/TT/8 8/?/"8C=J NOT D*FF/8/NT 7*T/8"T18/. <8/F/8 O18 7*NK T18N *T? B/TT/8 /D1C"T*ON T=/ B/?T N1C7/"8 $/"<ON? 7*T/8"T18/ &/T? *NVO7V/D *N T=/ N*TTE &8*TTE OF D"T"J =*?TO8EJ "ND T=/O8E $=*C= %/"N? $/ <8OD1C/ T=/ %O?T *ND/<T= "ND KNO$7/D&"B7/ ?T1DE OF N1C7/"8 $/"<ON?. NO *%<"CT TO TO<*C ?</C*F*C /D1 7/"8N*N& =O$ TO ACCU+ATE#$ "ND ,+EDICTAB#$ ?T1DE *NT/8N"T*ON"7 8/7"T*ON? *? %O8/ *%<O8T"NT T="N T=/ %*N1T*" OF %*NO8 "8%? CONT8O7 D/T"*7? *T? %1C= B/TT/8 TO "77O$ " ?T8ON&/8 %/T=OD T="N $O88E "BO1T T="T ?=*TTE ?T"8T D".

..

"T# "'' ?+eci'ic /4!

2NC
1. T=/8/? " TO<*C"7 V/8?*ON OF T=/*8 "FF C1?T B/C"1?/ T=/E D*DNHT 8/?/"8C= D1"NT*T"T*V/ 8/?/"8C= FO8 T=/*8 ?</C*F*C C"?/ "8/" DO/?NHT %/"N *T DO/?NHT /G*?T. $/ 7*%*T "DV"NT"&/ "8/"? %O8/ T="N $/ /7*%"T/ %/C="N*?%? "77O$*N& <7/NTE OF D/B"T/ OV/8 ````````````.
C8O?? "<<7E /D1C"T*ON "BOV/ /V/N *F $/ 7*%*T T=/ B8/"DT= OF C"?/?J $/ %"K/ /"C= C"?/ %1C= %O8/ /D1C"T*ON"7 "ND *ND/<T=. O18 /D1C"T*ON O1T$/*&=? T="T? "BOV/

2. :.

"T# No Case %eets

2NC
T=/E ?"E NO C"?/ %//T? 1. EO18 T=8/?=O7D ON =O$ %1C= 7*T $/ ="V/ TO <8OV/ /G*?T? ?=O17D B/ 8/"77E 7O$
"5 *T? NOT T=/ N/&? COB $/ DONHT ="V/ TO 8/"D " D" TO <8OV/ T NO8 DO $/ ="V/ TO 8/"D D"T" FO8 EO18 "FF *F T=/E $*N T=/8/? NO ?T8ON& D"T" FO8 N1C7/"8 <O7*CE $/ ="V/ ?1CC/??F177E N/&"T/D T=/ 8/?O71T*ON. B5 <"?T TO<*C? <8OV/ *T /G*?T/D ?T8ON& D"T" $"? FO1ND FO8 T=/ 7"?T T=8// TO<*C? "&J %*DD7/ /"?TJ CO18T? *T 7*K/7E /G*?T? FO8 N1C7/"8 <O7*CE C5 7*%*T? "8/ &OOD /V/N *F T=/E <8OV/ $/ ON7E "77O$ " ="NDF17 OF CO8/ D/B"T/? T=O?/ 7*%*T/D D/B"T/? "8/ &OOD B/C"1?/ T=/E "8/ <8/D*CT"B7/ "ND /NCO18"&/ *ND/<T= D/B"T/ OV/8 D"T".

2.

=/8/? 7*T $/H77 *D/NT*FE

a*N?/8T D"T" C"8D? FO8 TO<*Cb

"T# ?ome Thin s =a9e No Data

2NC
1. NO 7*NK O18 F8"%/$O8K ON7E 1?/? ?T8ON& D"T" TO /V"71"T/ CO%</T*N& <8/D*CT*ON? $/ DONHT 8/D1*8/ D"T" FO8 EO18 COEJ T=/ V"71/ OF 7*F/J O8 T=/ *%%O8"7*TE OF " 8"C*?T COK/. O18 F8"%/$O8K ON7E *ND*CT? T=/ C"1?"7*TE *N T=/*8 "FF. *N "8/"? $=/8/ T=/8/ *? NO D"T" /V"71"T/ *T "? EO1 NO8%"77E $O17D.
NO *%<"CT &*V/N T=/ "8/"? OF ?OC*"7 ?C*/NC/ ?T1D*/D BE T=/ TO<*C "8/ V/8E D1"NT*F*"B7/J *T? 7*K/7E T=/ =*DD/N ?/C8/T? OF 7*F/ T=/E T"7K "BO1T ="V/ NOT=*N& TO DO $*T= O8 8/"77E "N *%<"CT CO%<"8/D TO T=/ N/&? $"8 "ND CONF7*CT.

2.

"T# Framework Doesnt =a9e Data

2NC
1. NO 7*NK F8"%/$O8K *?NHT " <8/D*CT*ON B1T 8"T=/8 " %/T=OD "BO1T =O$ TO /V"71"T/ CO%</T*N& <8/D*CT*ON? ?T8ON& D"T" /G*?T? FO8 <"8T*C17"8 <8/D*CT*ON? B1T *? &/N/8"7*Q/D ?T"ND"8D <8"CT*C/ FO8 T=/ F8"%/$O8K. NO *%<"CT /V/N $*T=O1T D"T" EO1 C"N /V"71"T/ T=/ F8"%/$O8K D/B"T/ "? EO1 NO8%"77E C1D&/ "ND T=/N "FT/8 D/C*D*N& $/H8/ "=/"DJ "<<7E T=/ %/T=OD <8O<O?/D TO T=/ "FF <7"NJ "DV"NT"&/?J "ND ?O7V/NCE.
F8"%/$O8K D*D ="V/ ?O%/ D"T" C8O?? "<<7E GGG

2.

:.

"T# Data @ Coo+te4/Calc

2NC
1. D"T" *? *N/V*T"B7/ BOT= T/"%? 1?/ D"T" O8 " C8*T/8*" TO /?T"B7*?= $=E $="T T=/E KNO$ *? T81/ T=/E 1?/ $/"K D"T" 7*K/ D1"7*F*C"T*ON?J C7"*%?J <1B7*C"T*ONJ D"T/?J "ND /%<*8*C"7 CO88/7"T*ON? TO /?T"B7*?= T81T= T="T &/T? COO<T/D O8 C"7C17"T/D $"E $O8?/ T="N "NET=*N& ?T8ON& D"T" C"N DO. $/ CONT8O7 1 %"8&*N"7*Q/D &8O1<? "8/ &/TT*N& ?C8/$/D NO$ "ND C7"*%? TO C"7C17"T*ON "ND T81T= $*77 B/ 1?/D 8/&"8D7/??J ON7E " C="NC/ ?T8ON& D"T" =/7<? /G<O?/ ?T"T1? D1O ?T/8/OTE</? "ND B*"?/?

2.

8e!ter 60 I<eter 8e!ter ?enior /conomist in the $ashin ton O''ice o' the 8an4 Cor+oration.T=/ ?OC*"7 CO?T? OF T=/ D/%"ND FO8 D1"NT*F*C"T*ON Co!rnal o' <olic2 "nal2sis an4 %ana ement Vol!me > *ss!e .J <a es 60A ; 612L IctL That we live in a quantitative age is one of those rare statements that can be made without quantification. $e cons!me n!m)ers 'rom the time we wake !+ 3sl! in a9era esJ in'ant mortalit2 in /thio+ia5 thro! h )reak'ast 3+ercenta e 8D" o' calci!m in o!r cereal5 to the e9enin news 3+ercenta e 'a9orin more 4e'ense ex+en4it!res5. N!m)ers are a +artic!larl2 "merican +assionR a'ter allJ this is the nation that +!t the reM!irement o' a 4ecennial cens!s in its 'o!n4in 4oc!ment. Cas!al sociolo 2 s! ests that o!r lo9e a''air with n!m)ers relates to the "merican 'aith in the +er'ecti)ilit2 o' societ2. N!m)ers s! est !n4erstan4in an4 the +ossi)ilit2 o' im+ro9ement. KN!m)ers 4onHt lieK is +ro)a)l2 hear4 'ar more o'ten than %ark TwainHs re'erence to KliesJ 4amn lies an4 statistics.K N!m)ers ha9e also )ecome essential in +olic2 4e)ate. Not onl2 4o +oliticians an4 )!rea!crats cite statistics mercilessl2J )!t the +olic2 anal2sis comm!nit2 also enco!ra es them )2 stron l2 en4orsin the notion that Khar4K n!m)ers are the )e4rock 'or 4e9elo+in oo4 +olic2. This 4e4ication to n!m)ers in +olic2 has si ni'icant costs. The 4eman4 'or M!anti'ication o'ten creates its own s!++l2. <olic2 a49ocates enerate their own n!m)ers whichJ +artic!larl2 in newer areas o' +olic2 makin J are 'reM!entl2 o' +oor M!alit2 an4 4i''ic!lt to e9al!ate. These n!m)ers can exert a )ale'!l in'l!ence in +olic2 4e)ates. This essa2 sketches the nat!re an4 extent o' the +ro)lem. *t also ar !es that a49ocac2;)2; n!m)er is likel2 to )ecome more +re9alent in the '!t!re an4 s! ests that little can )e 4one to +re9ent the rowth o' the +ro)lem. C"8D CONT*N1/? *n a rational +olic2 worl4J the allocation o' o9ernment reso!rces. whether le al;coerci9e +ower or ex+en4it!resJ is hea9il2 in'l!ence4 )2 the +ercei9e4 scale o' a +ro)lem. $itho!t )ein a)le to show that lar e se ments o' the +o+!lation nee4 hel+J it is 4i''ic!lt to la2 claim to those reso!rces. B!t exa eratin the scale o' a +ro)lem can )e s!ccess'!l onl2 i' it is har4 to 4etermine its tr!e scale. *n man2 areas o' +!)lic +olic2J we are now knowle4 ea)le eno! h to rea4il2 ex+ose 'alse M!antitati9e claims. " claim that the rates o' !nem+lo2ment or in'lation are 9astl2 hi her than o''icial estimates will )e rea4il2 4ealt withR there is a lar e ex+ert comm!nit2 that s+en4s its time anal2Oin s!ch meas!res. The weaknesses o' o''icial meas!res are not minorJ )!t these meas!res are enerall2 reco niOe4 as s!+erior to the alarmistsH alternati9es. $e ha9eJ 'or s!ch mattersJ a )eni n &reshamHs lawR oo4 estimates 4ri9e o!t )a4. C"8D CONT*N1/? The 4ia nosis o' n!m)er;creatin a49ocac2 ma4e here can )e s!mmariOe4 in 'o!r +ro+ositions# 315 *n a worl4 increasin l2 4e4i; cate4 to rational allocation o' reso!rcesJ claims on the o9ernment sectors are hea9il2 in'l!ence4 )2 e9i4ence a)o!t the scale o' a +ro)lemR 325 The cons!m+tion o' o9ernment ser9ices t!rns o!tJ in the lon r!nJ to )e a++etite aro!sin R the more that are a9aila)leJ the reater the 4eman4 'or a44itional ser9icesR 3:5 *n some areas o' social +olic2J +artic!larl2 new onesJ so little is known that oo4 n!m)ers are 4i''ic!lt to +ro4!ce an4 )a4 n!m)ers are har4 to re'!teR an4 3.5 <olic2 a49ocates are o'ten either cre4!lo!s or !nscr!+!lo!s a)o!t how the2 !se n!m)ers in s!++ort o' their cases. *s there a +rescri+tion 'or the ailmentW 8eme4iesW ?+eci'ie4 4i''erentl2J the M!estion is how can we ens!re M!alit2 control o' n!m)ers !se4 in +!)lic +olic2 4e)atesW C!st 'ramin the M!estion makes the answer 4istressin l2 clear# Not )loo42 likel2. <oliticiansJ who are maPor +ro4!cers an4 +ro+o!n4ers o' these n!m)ersJ are not enth!siasts o' an2 constraints on their 4isco!rse. $ho wo!l4 exercise this M!alit2 controlW =ow co!l4 it )e 4istin !ishe4 'rom censorshi+W The more +racticalJ tho! h scarcel2 com+rehensi9eJ reme42 is sim+l2 to ens!re that +olic2 researchers )e more )loo42 min4e4 in ex+osin these n!m)ers. On the economic costs o' re !lationJ the research comm!nit2 4i4 a reasona)le Po) o' +re9entin the worst excesses o' a49ocac2 n!m)ers.1. The 4r! income n!m)ersJ in contrastJ ha9e not )een s!ccess'!ll2 challen e4J )!t that ma2 re'lect the eneral research comm!nit2 in4i''erence to a +artic!larl2 mess2 +ro)lem with 9er2 +oor 4ata.

:.

7"CK OF ?T8ON& D"T" /N?18/? CO;O<T*ON BE T=/ 8*&=T

7ato!r 0. IBr!no $h2 =as CritiM!e 8!n o!2t o' ?teamW From %atters o' F"ct to %atters o' ConcernL Ihtt+#//criticalinM!ir2.!chica o.e4!/iss!es/9:0/:0n2.7ato!r.htmlL *n which case the 4an er wo!l4 no lon er )e comin 'rom an excessi9e con'i4ence in i4eolo ical ar !ments +ost!rin as matters o' 'actas we ha9e learne4 to com)at so e''icientl2 in the +ast)!t 'rom an excessi9e 4istr!st o' oo4 matters o' 'act 4is !ise4 as )a4 i4eolo ical )iasesX $hile we s+ent 2ears tr2in to 4etect the real +reP!4ices hi44en )ehin4 the a++earance o' o)Pecti9e statementsJ 4o we ha9e now to re9eal the real o)Pecti9e an4 incontro9erti)le 'acts hi44en )ehin4 the ill!sion o' +reP!4icesW "n4 2et entire <h.D +ro rams are still r!nnin to make s!re that oo4 "merican ki4s are learnin the har4 wa2 that 'acts are ma4e !+J that there is no s!ch thin as nat!ralJ !nme4iate4J !n)iase4 access to tr!thJ that we are alwa2s the +risoner o' lan !a eJ that we alwa2s s+eak 'rom one stan4+ointJ an4 so onJ while dangerous e!tremists are using the very same argument of social construction to destroy hard#won evidence that could save our lives. $as * wron to +artici+ate in the in9ention o' this 'iel4 known as science st!4iesW *s
it eno! h to sa2 that we 4i4 not reall2 mean what we meantW $h2 4oes it )!rn m2 ton !e to sa2 that lo)al warmin is a 'act whether 2o! like it or notW $h2 canHt * sim+l2 sa2 that the ar !ment is close4 'or oo4W

?ho!l4 * reass!re m2sel' )2 sim+l2 sa2in that )a4 !2s can !se an2 wea+on at han4J nat!raliOe4 'acts when it s!its them an4 social constr!ction when it s!its themW ?ho!l4 we a+olo iOe 'or ha9in )een wron all alon W ?ho!l4 we rather )rin the swor4 o' criticism to criticism itsel' an4 4o a )it o' so!l;
searchin here# $hat were we reall2 a'ter when we were so intent on showin the social constr!ction o' scienti'ic 'actsW Nothin !aranteesJ a'ter allJ that we sho!l4 )e ri ht all the time. There is no s!re ro!n4 e9en 'or criticism.. *s this not what criticism inten4e4 to sa2# that there is no s!re ro!n4 an2wa2W B!t what 4oes it meanJ when this lack o' s!re ro!n4 is taken o!t 'rom !s )2 the worst +ossi)le 'ellows as an ar !ment a ainst thin s we cherishe4W "rti'iciall2 maintaine4 contro9ersies are not the onl2 worr2in si n. $hat has critiM!e )ecome when a French eneralJ noJ a marshal o' critiM!eJ namel2J Cean Ba!4rillar4J claims in a +!)lishe4 )ook that the $orl4 Tra4e Towers 4estro2e4 themsel9es !n4er their own wei htJ so to s+eakJ !n4ermine4 )2 the !tter nihilism inherent in ca+italism itsel'as i' the terrorist +lanes were +!lle4 to s!ici4e )2 the +ower'!l attraction o' this )lack hole o' nothin nessW> $hat has )ecome o' critiM!e when a )ook can )e a )est;seller that claims that no +lane e9er crashe4 into the <enta onW * am ashame4 to sa2 that the a!thor was French too.0 8emem)er the oo4 ol4 4a2s when re9isionism arri9e4 9er2 lateJ a'ter the 'acts ha4 )een thoro! hl2 esta)lishe4J 4eca4es a'ter )o4ies o' e9i4ence ha4 acc!m!late4W Now we ha9e the )ene'it o' what can )e calle4 instant re9isionismW The smoke o' the e9ent has not 2et 'inishe4 settlin )e'ore 4oOens o' cons+irac2 theories are alrea42 re9isin the o''icial acco!ntJ a44in e9en more r!ins to the r!insJ a44in e9en more smoke to the smoke. $hat has )ecome o' critiM!e when m2 nei h)or in the little Bo!r)onnais 9illa e where * ha9e m2 ho!se looks 4own on me as someone ho+elessl2 nai9e )eca!se * )elie9e that the 1nite4 ?tates ha4 )een str!ck )2 terrorist attacksW 8emem)er the oo4 ol4 4a2s when !ni9ersit2 +ro'essors co!l4 look 4own on !nso+histicate4 'olks )eca!se those hill)illies nai9el2 )elie9e4 in ch!rchJ motherhoo4J an4 a++le +iesW $ellJ thin s ha9e chan e4 a lotJ in m2 9illa e at least. * am the one now who nai9el2 )elie9es in some 'acts )eca!se * am e4!cate4J while it is the other !2s now who are too !nso+histicate4 to )e !lli)le an2more# K$here ha9e 2o! )eenW DonHt 2o! know 'or s!re that the %ossa4 an4 the C*" 4i4 itWK $hat has )ecome o' critiM!e when someone as eminent as ?tanle2 FishJ the Kenem2 o' +romiseK as 7in4sa2 $aters calls himJ )elie9es he 4e'en4s science st!4iesJ m2 'iel4J )2 com+arin the law o' +h2sics to the r!les o' )ase)allWA $hat has )ecome o' critiM!e when there is a whole in4!str2 4en2in that the "+ollo +ro ram lan4e4

$hat has )ecome o' critiM!e when D"8<" !ses 'or its Total *n'ormation "wareness +roPect the Baconian slo an ?cientia est +otentiaW =a9e * not rea4 that somewhere in %ichel Fo!ca!ltW =as Knowle4 e;slash;<ower )een co;o+te4 o' late )2 the National ?ec!rit2 " enc2W =as Disci+line an4 <!nish )ecome the )e4si4e rea4in o' %r. 8i4 eW
on the %oonW 7et me )e mean 'or a secon4# whatHs the real 4i''erence )etween cons+iracists an4 a +o+!lariOe4J that is a teacha)leJ 9ersion o' social critiM!e ins+ire4 'or instance )2 a too;M!ick rea4in o'J letHs sa2J a sociolo ist as eminent as <ierre Bo!r4ie!to )e +olite * will stick with the French 'iel4 comman4ersW *n )oth casesJ 2o! ha9e to learn to )ecome s!s+icio!s o' e9er2thin +eo+le sa2 )eca!se Ko' co!rse we all knowK that the2 li9e in the thralls o' a com+lete ill!sio on their real moti9es. ThenJ

a'ter 4is)elie' has str!ck an4 an ex+lanation is reM!este4 'or what is Kreall2K oin onJ in )oth cases a ainJ it is the same a++eal to +ower'!l a ents hi44en in the 4ark actin alwa2s consistentl2J contin!o!sl2J relentlessl2. O' co!rseJ weJ in the aca4em2J like to !se more ele9ate4 ca!sessociet2J 4isco!rseJ knowle4 e;slash;+owerJ 'iel4s o' 'orcesJ em+iresJ ca+italismwhile cons+iracists like to +ortra2 a misera)le )!nch o' ree42 +eo+le with 4ark intentsJ )!t * 'in4 somethin tro!)lin l2 similar in the str!ct!re o' the ex+lanationJ in the 'irst mo9ement o' 4is)elie' an4J thenJ in the wheelin o' ca!sal ex+lanations comin o!t o' the 4ee+ Dark )elow. $hat i' ex+lanations resortin a!tomaticall2 to +owerJ societ2J 4isco!rseJ ha4 o!tli9e4 their !se'!lnessJ an4 4eteriorate4 to the +oint o' now 'ee4in also the most !lli)le sort o' critiM!esW6 %a2)e * am takin cons+irac2 theories too serio!sl2J )!t * am worrie4 to 4etectJ in those ma4 mixt!res o' knee;Perk 4is)elie'J +!nctilio!s
4eman4s 'or +roo'sJ an4 'ree !se o' +ower'!l ex+lanation 'rom the social ne9erlan4J man2 o' the wea+ons o' social critiM!e. O' co!rse cons+irac2 theories are an a)s!r4 4e'ormation o' o!r own ar !mentsJ )!tJ like wea+ons sm! le4 thro! h a '!OO2 )or4er to the wron +art2J these are o!r wea+ons nonetheless. *n s+ite o' all the 4e'ormationsJ it is eas2 to reco niOeJ still )!rnt in the steelJ o!r tra4e mark# %"D/ *N C8*T*C"77"ND.

.. <8/F/8 T=/ 7*NK T18N *T? " 7OT /"?*/8 TO %"N*<17"T/ $/"KJ =*DD/N D"T"
7o!r2 2000J I&lenn. %erton <. ?toltO <ro'essor o' the ?ocial ?ciences an4 <ro'essor o' /conomics at Brown 1ni9ersit2.K?ocial /xcl!sion an4 /thnic &ro!+s# The Challen e to /conomics# +a e 22A;6L IctL *s (&oo4 ?cience, &oo4 /no! hW That ( oo4 science, mi ht +ro9e to )e an anti4ote to ro!+ hatre4 has )een a ho+e o' +ro ressi9e social o)ser9ers thro! ho!t the mo4ern a e. The stor2 oes some;thin like this. "nta onism towar4 a +artic!lar (race, ma2 in9ol9e s!++ose4l2 o)Pecti9e claims a)o!t the nat!re o' +eo+le o' that race;a)o!t their moral 4e'iciencies or intellect!al in'eriorit2J 'or exam+le. These claims can )e s!)Pecte4 to scienti'ic scr!tin2 an4 re'!te4. Con'ronte4 with these scienti'ic ar !mentsJ rational +eo+le mi ht then alter the )elie's on which their racial enmit2 rests. *n this wa2 so!n4 scienceJ a 9al!e; ne!tral enter+riseJ can +ro4!ce the ethicall2 4esira)le res!lt o' !n4erminin racial anta onism by replacing pre,udice and stereotypes with data and rigorous analysis. This stor2 is +la!si)leJ with am+le historical +rece4ent. *t is onl2 ma4e more com; +ellin when one recalls how totalitarian +olitical re imes;+artic!larl2 the NaOis;ha9e !se4 ()a4 science, to P!sti'2 their racist +olitical +ro rams. *' science 'alls !n4er the in'l!ence o' a +olitical a en4a an4 ceases to )e an a!tonomo!s intellec;t!al acti9it2; i' it )ecomes )a4 science;then it can a)et the s+rea4 o' racial hatre4. Th!s +ro+er scienti'ic ar !ment can 'oster racial toleranceJ while the a)!se o' sci;ence can lea4 to 4ist!r)in res!lts. Eet these o!tcomes are )2 no means !arantee4. %hether science is good or bad depends on its conformity with disciplines and methods that practitioners see as meeting their standards of evidence and argument. This essentially technical matter has relatively little moral content. *n an2 e9entJ scienti'ic ar !ment is a s+ecialiOe44isco!rse within a narrow comm!nit2 o' in9esti ators o9erne4 )2 strict norms an44isci+lines. *n4ee4J it is an in4ication that a 'iel4 has mat!re4 as a science when its4isco!rse takes on the M!alit2 o' what mi ht )e calle4

sociolin !istic clos!re.Thomas K!hn 319025 stresse4 P!st this +oint in his in'l!ential workJ The ?tr!ct!reo' ?cienti'ic 8e9ol!tions.

"T# Data @ Coo+te4/Calc

7x T/
/GT F"CT? C"N OV/8CO%/ *D/O7O&E
Fisher 99 I=arwoo4 Fisher Cit2 Colle e o' the Cit2 1ni9ersit2 o' New Eork Context an4 Cate or2# The <ost;%o4ern <ower <olitics o' /x+ro+riation Co!rnal o' Theoretical an4 <hiloso+hical <s2. Vol. 1>J No. 2J 199>L IctL Certainl2 whole 4isci+lines in +s2cholo 2 'ollow a tra4ition o' acce+tin certain cate ories an4 not othersR P!st as s!rel2J +oliticalJ ethnicJ nationalJ an4 s!+ernational comm!nitiesJ _i norant armies that clash )2 ni htJH an4 c!lt!res 4o the same. B!t what a)o!t the +ost;mo4ern claim that all 4isco!rse is m2thW &er en 319915 claims that +s2cholo ical 9iew+oints are m2ths. /9en +s2cholo ists who a ree to 4isre ar4 nat!ral 'actsJ s!ch as those constit!tin the a''or4ances o' the +h2sical worl4 or o' the enetic an4 ne!rolo ical 4eterminants o' emotional ex+eriences an4 ex+ressionsJ are merel2 constr!ctin stran4s o' an alternate m2thJ one 92in with the o++ressi9e KtotaliOin 4isco!rseK o' nat!ral science. Th!sJ a social constr!ctionist claim is e alitarianismJ )2 which choice o' 4isco!rse an4/or m2th is s!)Pect to whate9er con9entions o' comm!nal a reement +re9ail at one or another local time an4 +lace. "nother claim inter+rets the +resentl2 +re+otent m2th as a 9ictorJ hol4in +ower o9er sel' an4 knowle4 e. Technolo ies an4 telecomm!nication so sat!rate the Ksel9esK o' in4i9i4!als with lo)al access to the li'est2les o' 4i9ers +eo+les an4 c!lt!resJ that nat!ral 'acts o' ne!rolo ical wirin an4 emotional ex+erience are trans'orme4 to a 4isco!rse in which com+etitionJ +ower;seekin J an4 hatre4 wither awa2J )eca!se the2 are sociall2 !se;less or Knonsensical.K 3?ee &er enJ 19915.

"T# Data @ Calc 3Dillon5

/GT
C8*T*D1/? OF C"T/&O8*Q*N& *&NO8/ T="T *T *? *N/V*T"B7/ "ND <O7*T*C"7 8/C/CT*N& C"7C17"T*ON /N?18/? $/H77 B/ C"7C17"T/D "&"*N?T
Fisher 99 I=arwoo4 Fisher Cit2 Colle e o' the Cit2 1ni9ersit2 o' New Eork Context an4 Cate or2# The <ost;%o4ern <ower <olitics o' /x+ro+riation Co!rnal o' Theoretical an4 <hiloso+hical <s2. Vol. 1>J No. 2J 199>L IctL $hether itHs an ill!sion;* 4onHt K)elie9eK it is;* think * can ste+ o!tsi4e context!alism to re9erse %-e genus s!ecies relation * attri)!te to the i4ea that context cons!mes within itsel' cate ories o' ex+erience an4 s!ch re'lexi9ities as cate ories )2 which to classi'2 an4 4escri)e contexts. " context!alist wo!l4 not allow me to sa2 that context itsel' is a class or a cate or2J )eca!se m2 9er2 sa2in so is a context!al e9ent. Cate ories are th!s ex+ro+riate4 'rom thinkers an4 their ima inationsR thenJ to )e a thinker is a _+racticeH within the mani'ol4. To )e a9oi4e4 is the K4isen a e4 in4i9i4!alJK a m2th ser9in the +olitical +!r+oses o' reli ionists an4 militarists 3Ta2lorJ 19695 or technolo ists an4 technocrats 3Ta2lorJ 19915. * am worrie4. There is +olitical 4an er o' remo9in meanin 'rom cate ories )2 not accommo4atin lo ical 4istinctions an4 le9els o' re'erence. <ost;mo4ernism an4 the 'i ht to s!stain rhetoric in the +lace o' lo ic in the st!42 o' science ma2 )e +artic!larl2 attracti9e to +s2cholo istsJ since in4ee4 man2 9oices oin !nhear4 sho!l4 )e hear4. On the other han4J i' +ersonal i4entit2 is eM!ate4 with comm!nit2 o' 4isco!rseJ then there is no 'ree4om 'rom the Chor!s.
$ithin the +ost;mo4ern r!le that * canHt cate oriOe is a lo ic o' tho! ht )2 which * canHt +re4icate;an4 there'ore canHt transcen4;o++osin cate ories;at least none o!tsi4e o' Km2K socio;historical rhetorical s+ace. *' * canHt +lace context!alism in a class * can ste+ o!tsi4e o'J then * am s!ecies to its genus. an4 an2 re9ersal o' this relation wo!l4 )e a matter merel2 o' whatHs +ermissi)le )2 context!al r!les;no selection )2 an a entR no 'ree will. "n2wa2J within m2 +res!m+tion that an2 4escri+tion;e9en a 4escri+tion o' 4escri+tions;can )e s!+erse4e4 )2 another le9el o' classi'icationJ is the re9elation that i' * 4onHt ass!me thisJ then context as a cate or2 within which an2 4escri+tion or acco!nt is interwo9enJ )ecomes an in9iola)le Kclass o' all classes.K 7et me show this. "4o+t 'or a moment the ima e o' 4isco!rse as the social !ni9erse ex+an4in in all +ossi)le 4irectionsJ an4 as s!chJ o+eratin as the s+ace within with all social e9ents s!ch as lan !a e an4 s+eech are locate4. "n2 +ersonJ as a social e9entJ ma2 tra9el alon +artic!lar +athwa2s mo9in J ex+an4in J com+licatin her 4isco!rse in relation to an2 +roximate an4 4istal s+eech acts an4 role takers. For an2 +erson;s!ch as *;whoe9er K*K am is a con9ention within the texts a9aila)le to KmeJK )!t that KmeK is 9ario!sl2 in4exe4 )2 man2 s+eakers with 4i''erent +ers+ecti9es on the e9ents in'l!encin their +athwa2s. K*K am in there somewhereJ context!aliOe4 within the 4isco!rse K!ni9erseK;ex+an4in or not;with all its ri hts an4 +ri9ile es o' s!)s!m+tion co+2ri hte4. 1nless * hol4 m2 tale o' that K!ni9erseK to )e a +ositJ an4 see it as one amon man2 ima esJ * am like T8ONJ r!nnin alon +athwa2s 'rom which there is no esca+e.

*n shortJ the +remise that all social e9ents incl!4in what we a ree to la)el Ktho! htK an4 Ka enc2K are the context!al !ni9erseJ lea4s to rhetoric witho!t re ar4 to lo icJ an4 +olitics in the +lace o' science an4 reason. Cate oriOation is a +olitical act. $hate9er +re9ails as a wa2 o' settin an4 achie9in social oals is local an4 e+hemeralJ s!)Pect to +ower +la2s 3 amesW5 o' the r!les o' 4isco!rse an4 their e''ects within i9en s+eech comm!nities. This sort o' thin is a++arentl2 all!rin to +s2cholo ists who want +s2cholo 2 to re'lect as man2 9oices as +ossi)leJ 3Brewster; ?mithJ 199.R ?am+sonJ 199:5R it has +romise an4 +otential i' the reatest n!m)er o' +ossi)le 9oices are hear4 3&er enR 199.5J an4 i' whate9er +re9ails is +re4icate4 on a +ra matism an4/or on c!ttin to a minim!m the risks o' not achie9in a ree4 !+on o)Pecti9es;no matter what the2 are 3Brewster;?mithJ 199.5. $ith s!ch characteristicsJ +olitical 4istri)!tion o' ex+ro+riate4 cate ories can )e e alitarian;i' 2o! want a _newH reli ionJ it is a matter o' eno! h +eo+le a reein to its tenets an4 r!les. "n excl!sionar2 +olic2 or cate oriOation o' Ko!tsi4ersJK with sanctions a ainst those who are not +art o' the ro!+J 4e+en4s on the n!m)er o' 9oices that are an4/or et hear4. *n +!rel2 +olitical termsJ ettin hear4 is a +ower +la2J which ma2 )e )2 the reatest n!m)er;or )2 the lo!4est or stron estJ or some s!ch thin . =owe9erJ to ha9e a +ower +la2 at the center o' oneHs ri hts an4 +ri9ile es har4l2 so!n4s e alitarian. *t is like sa2in Kwe all ha9e the eM!al ri hts an4 +ri9ile es o' 9ictims.K $hat is calle4 _e alitarianH seems not soJ )eca!seJ when the 9al!e o' Kthe reatest n!m)erK is wel4e4 to +ower +la2J there is a contra4iction in terms. $hile s!ch e alitarianism seems a 4!)io!s la)elJ m2 +oint is that the more si ni'icant +ower +la2 is in the a++ro+riation o' the cate or2 o' _lan !a eJ textJ 4isco!rseH as an all incl!si9e Kclass o' all classesK '-ic- cannot )e s!+erse4e4;+erio4. The +ost;mo4ernist thinks 3sa2s5 that context s!)s!mes cate ories an4 that social contexts are rhetorical an4 instr!mental 4isco!rses. There'oreJ what is acce+te4 as a 9al!eJ a ri htJ a oo4J an4/or a tr!th is +olitical +ower +ositionin )2 9oiceJ an4;to take this home;closes o'' an2 com+lementar2 class o' str!ct!resJ s!ch as a !ni9ersal str!ct!re to s2ntax or set o' necessar2 lo ical r!les 'or an2 comm!nication. ?oJ somethin like a mani'ol4;+!t in +lace as a Kclass o' all classesK;cannot )e ne ate4. "n4 since 2o! canHt et o!tsi4e s!ch an entit2J it cannot )e o++ose4 )2 an2 4!alit2 that co!l4 )e +re4icate4J s!ch as that o' a Cartesian KthinkerK or an ontolo ical K*.K at e9er the health in9ol9e4 when science swin s )ack an4 'orth 'rom narrati9e to lo ic an4 the other wa2 aro!n4J or when the scientist sees hersel' as an in4i9i4!al o++ose4 to the ti4es o' contextJ )!t is constraine4 )2 ration; alit2J * 'or oneJ 4o not want to see s!ch tensions 4issol9e4. * am reall2 ha9in tro!)le with the +ost;mo4ern i4ea o' an2thin e alitarianJ i' cate or2 ex+ro+riation arro ates +ower to lock o!t o++osin i4easJ with the exc!se that context!alism re+laces the mis!ses o' cate oriOin . *

"T# Data @ Tr!th

2NC
C7"*%? TO F"CT "8/ *N/V*T"B7/ "ND %1?T B/ %"D/ TO C1D&/ CO%</T*N& /T=*C"7 C7"*%? /7?/ T=/ 8*&=T $*77 1?/ T=/% TO ?C8/$ T=/ %"8&*N"7*Q/D N//D F"CT? TO /G<O?/ <O$/8
Fisher 99 I=arwoo4 Fisher Cit2 Colle e o' the Cit2 1ni9ersit2 o' New Eork Context an4 Cate or2# The <ost;%o4ern <ower <olitics o' /x+ro+riation Co!rnal o' Theoretical an4 <hiloso+hical <s2. Vol. 1>J No. 2J 199>L IctL * ar !e that mainstream +s2cholo ists like Brewster;?mithJ who want to o++ose s!ch social constr!ctionist ni-ilis/ an4 +ost; mo4ern )in de siecle ennui. cannot s!ccee4 !nless the2 rePect the +ower +ositions inherent in the 9iolations o' lo ic when knowle4 e is +re4icate4 on +ost;mo4ern claims o' ri ht )2 K9oiceK 3?am+sonJ 199:5. To make this ar !mentJ * res+on4 to &er enHs thesis 319915 that Kre+resentationismK is a )lin4 alle2. Nor is this a +ro)lem sim+l2 o' the one theorist or merel2 o' social constr!ctionists 3?ee Deel2J 1990R ?tenner U /cclestonJ 199.5. The claim that 4isco!rse sim+l2 KworksK in a social context is one &er en traces to $itt enstein. 3"lso see ?hwe4er U ?!lli9anJ 199:5. /choes in a +ra matic sociolo 2 o' o)Pecti9es an4/or in a !i4in +hiloso+h2 o' instr!mentalism 3Ta2lorJ 19695 re9er)erate in +s2cholo 2 3e. .J ?hotterJ 196.R 199>5. The _choiceH o' what works in a social context calls 'or some sort o' 9al!e to i4enti'2 a tar et +ro)lemJ its sol!tionJ or to set a criterionJ s!ch as the maintenance o' a social or4er or the r!les )2 which it can chan e. $ho or what sa2s that one +ro)lem is more central to a social context than another or that the contextHs m!ta)ilit2 or non;m!ta)ilit2 is the +re9ailin 9al!eW The +ost; mo4ern 4isco!rse !ni9erseJ as con;texts o' social e9entsJ intertwines with an2 realit2 or cate or2 o' realit2. Cate ories are context!al e9entsR not selecte4 )2 an2 /ind o!tsi4e the contextJ nor )2 an2 s2stem o' str!ct!res;s!ch as s2ntax r!les;which themsel9es are intertwine4 within the !ni9erse o' 4isco!rse contexts. 'f such a universe of discourse cannot refer to any logic or synta! outside it#no dualities-#and if, instead, it is self#contained, self#constructed, and self#constructing, then what works is what is the case. and the question of goals and ob,ectives is begged. Those who make a co!nterclaim a)o!t +s2cholo istsH KelitistK claims o' knowle4 e sho!l4 own !+;the co!nterclaim is also a claimJ an4 so can )e rePecte4. Th!sJ m2 o)Pecti9e is not merel2 rePection o' &eertOHs 3196:5 re'i !rin o' social science as 4isco!rse with em)e44e4 cate oriOationsJ )!t a reassertion that the onl2 thin o!tsi4e o' cate oriOation is its ori inJ an4 thatJ to the extent that in4i9i4!als re'lecti9el2 constr!ct meanin s relatin to an4 re+resentin their inner ex+eriencesJ the2 ma2 learn to "control what the2 'eelJ thinkJ an4 4o. 8ele9ant semiotic ar !ments a)o!t the meanin o' si ns an4 o)Pects are )e2on4 the sco+e an4 s+ace o' this +a+er. * restrict s!++ort 'or m2 +osition to showin lo ical errors in the +ost;mo4ern ass!m+tions that all cate oriOin an4 r!les o' lo ical necessit2 are +olitical +ower ra)s an4 that when consi4erin 4isco!rse as context one cannot o o!tsi4e o' it in search 'or either new cate ories or a lo ical metho4 o' o++osition. ?OC*"7 <O$/8J CO%%1N*TE KNO$7/D&/J "ND C"T/&O8E /G<8O<8*"T*ON $ho Cannot an4 $ho Can ?+eak <s2cholo 2 " ainJ men ha9e )een ke+t )ack as )2 a kin4 o' enchantment 'rom +ro ress in the sciences )2 re9erence 'or antiM!it2J )2 the a!thorit2 o' men acco!nte4 reat in +hiloso+h2J an4 then )2 eneral consent. 3BaconJ F.J 1020# *n 8. C. ConesJ 19:AR +. :005. "n4 here ... sho!l4 close that +art o' m2 *nsta!rationJ which is 4e9ote4 to +!llin 4ownJ which +art is +er'orme4 )2 three re'!tations# 'irstJ )2 the re'!tation o' the na%ural -u/an reas&n. le't to itsel'R secon4l2J )2 the re'!tation o' the de/&ns%ra%i&ns0 an4 thir4l2J )2 the re'!tations o' the %-e&ries. or the recei9e4 s2stems o' +hiloso+h2 an4 4octrine. 3BaconJ F.J 1020# *n 8. C. ConesJ 19:AR +. :2.5. $hen +ost;mo4ern +rota onists like &er en 4en2 that science can )e an Ko!tsi4eK +osition 'rom which to e9al!ate ar)itrar2 4eclarations a)o!t 'acts an4 knowle4 eJ the2 contra4ict the 9er2 nat!re o' the aims o' science an4 its historical role in relation to ar)itrar2 4o ma 3in 4e'ense o' s!ch a roleJ see CohenJ 19:1R ConantJ 19>0R 'or an acco!nt o' the attack on scienceHs Ksel'; characteriOationK as Kthe creation o' a new m2thJK see NicklesJ 199>J +. 1..5. One can 9al!a)l2 ar !e that s!ch as ha4 their ori in in an economic matrix o' cons!merism an4 a tra4e in l!x!ries 3DastonJ 199>J +. 1A5 an4 note that em+iricist 3an4 anti; "ristotelian5 9iews ha9e )een s!)Pecte4 to 9ario!s in'ormati9e trans'ormations in9ol9in the role o' the +ercei9er an4 the im+act o' social moti9esJ 9al!esJ an4 lin !istic contexts 3see NicklesH re9iewJ 199>5. %2 concern is the assa!lt on lo ic that arises when too m!ch re4!ction takes +lace an4 4!alities o' sel' an4 other an4 o' tho! ht an4 lan !a e an4 o' in4i9i4!al an4 societ2 are resol9e4 )2 '!sion rather than )2 anal2sis 3"lso see NicklesJ 199>5. %2 o)Pection is to re4!ction as contraste4 with transcen4ence as a resol!tion o' s!ch 4!alities. $itho!t an2 attem+t here to catalo !e +ost;mo4ern +ositionsJ s!ch as the i4ea that scienti'ic +ro ress is a matter o' 4ialectical swin s )ro! ht a)o!t )2 com+etin research tra4itionsJ one can note the tren4 towar4 a less sim+le notion o' o)Pecti9e 'actsJ to one o' +ers+ecti9es on 'acts as a '!nction o' social +ractices an4 lin !istic e9ents an4 tra4itions. =owe9erJ it has )een m2 +osition in this +a+er that certain 9ersions o' +ost;mo4ern 4escri+tion;s+eci'icall2 social constr!ctionist;re4!ce to a context!alism that makes the i4enti'ication o' ca!sal +atterns a social 4ecision to err2man4er what e9ents im+in e on others. "ll o' which is to sa2 that s!ch a +osition lea9es ro!n4s 'or a totalitarian mo9e to make local 4ecisions a)o!t +s2cholo ical

+henomenaJ )2 wa2 o' whoe9er has the stron est or lo!4est 9oice or whoe9er is most sociall2 +ower'!l in +re9ailin to 4e'ine what is an im+ortant set o' +ro)lems an4 what is an a4a+ti9e set o' sol!tions. ")sent 'rom s!ch a +osition is the criterion o' e9ol9e4 mechanismsJ s!ch as those o' 9isionJ an4 the 9ario!s attem+ts at conce+ts o' interaction )etween or anism an4 the a''or4ances o' the en9ironment 3?ee <lotkinJ 199.R 7ooren 4e Con J 199>5. "lso a)sent is an2 ar !ment that wo!l4 transcen4 the i4ea that ca!salit2 nee4 )e strictJ an4 instea4 )e conce+t!aliOe4 as contin ent 3<ietroskiJ 199.5. ?oJ in some manner s!ch statements re4!cin a +s2cholo 2 seekin external criteria to lin !istic +ower ames reM!ire an answer. &er en 3199.J +. .1:5 writesJ Consi4er the i4eal o' o)Pecti9e knowle4 e. *n +s2cholo 2J as in other sciencesJ the claim to Ko)Pecti9e knowle4 eK o+erates as a con9ersational tr!m+. . . Kscience talkK is th!s as totaliOin as that o' the 4ema o 2 that science has so! ht to re+lace. $e)ster 319A:R +. :01 5 4e'ines de/ag&gue in two wa2s# oneJ Ka lea4er cham+ionin the ca!se o' common +eo+le in ancient times.K TwoJ Ka lea4er who makes !se o' +o+!lar +reP!4ices an4 'alse claims an4 +romises in or4er to ain +ower.K ?cience as social lea4ershi+ or as the search 'or social +ower wo!l4 s! est that a +s2cholo 2J assertin transcen4in 9al!esJ onl2 masM!era4es as le itimate commentar2J while o++ressin 9oices o!tsi4e its comm!nit2. *n s!ch a lan !a e ameJ the metho4 o' scienti'ic critiM!e is a +ower +la2;4es+ite its claims that testin an4 ex+erimentation s!)Pect alternate 9iews to critical re9iew. 8easonin in retros+ectJ while 9iews like those o' %orris Cohen or $illiam =ear4 Kil+atrick +erha+s o9erexten4 i4eas o' a rare'ie4 o)Pecti9it2J 4ialo ical )attles in +s2cholo 2 4o not re4!ce sim+l2 to 'i hts o9er 9oice. The worr2 o9er +s2cholo ists as +ower moti9ate4 is one o9er the ar)itrariness o' an2 cate oriOin . The classical science;asrhetoric 9ers!s science;as;lo ic ar !ment )ecomes a contem+orar2 'i ht o9er +ower. The KneoromanticK worries that it ma2 )e excl!sionar2 to sa2 that i' there is no em+irical e9i4ence an4 no rationalit2 to an ar !ment it is less 9al!a)le to the science than an ar !ment with 'acts an4 reasons 3C'. NicklesJ 199>5. ?cience s!)Pects itsel' to a set o' criteriaJ )!t 4oes not s!)mit to alternate +ers+ecti9esJ s!ch as 4isco!rse that wo!l4 non;criticall2 or non;anal2ticall2 rePect its tenets. B2 metho4olo ical he emon2J science ass!mes a cate orial +osition o' genus. 'ol4in in other 4isco!rse enter+rises s!)Pect to i%s r!les o' s2ntaxJ reasonin J an4 e9al!ation. =ence 4isco!rse +henomena;metho4sJ technolo iesJ 'acts;le itimate4 )2 re'erence to realit2 are rele ate4 to s!ecies +ositions. O!tsi4e o' the genus are +se!4o;scienceJ m2sticismJ an4 the like. <ost;mo4ernistsJ s+eci'icall2 social constr!ctionistsJ rePect this genus s!ecies taxonom2J not merel2 )eca!se it +!ts +ower in KelitistK control o9er r!les o' 4isco!rse an4 their e''ects on who has the ri hts/9oice to 4e'ine an4 assi n h!man roles an4 social +racticesJ )!t also )eca!seJ in their 9iewJ cate oriOin is e+istemolo icall2 wron . False 4ichotomies are set in motionR cate ories are +rom!l ate4 to re'er toJ controlJ an4 sort o!t realitiesJ le itimatin the i4ea that 'acts are se+arate 'rom the cate ories. 8ePection;not onl2 o' the +ower s!ch cate ories a''or4 whoe9er le itimates themJ )!t also o' meta+h2sical 4!alism;e+iste; molo icall2 lea9es a nominalismJ in which no metho4 )ase4 on reason an4 a)straction is meanin '!lJ since re+resentation is a m2th 3a 9iew share4 )2 &er enJ 1991J an4 ?am+sonJ 199:5. There is consi4era)le error in this reasonin ;one exam+le is a sort o' mis!se o' %illHs metho4 o' similarit2. *r9in Co+i tells the stor2 o' the 4r!nk who shows that )eca!se he 4rinks scotchJ )o!r)onJ an4 inJ an4 )eca!se these 9ar2;while in contrastJ the water he swi s 4own with each 4rink is a constant across each instance o' his ettin 4r!nk;water is the ca!se o' his 4i''ic!lties. The chaser is the c!l+rit. /9er2 time +s2cholo ists et _4r!nkH on a theor2;str!ct!ralismJ '!nctionalismJ )eha9iorismJ co niti9ismJ +ost;mo4ernism;there is a c-aser1 +olitical mis!se. That there is +olitical +ost!rin o' scientistsJ an4 an2 n!m)er o' +ett2 t2rants who !se research tra4itions to ca+t!re rants an4 to le9era e the meta+hors to which hosts o' ra4!ate st!4ents are hel4 ca+ti9e is the s!)Pect o' a 9ariet2 o' 8o)ert %erton anal2ses o' the Kethos o' scienceK 3DastonJ 199>J +. A5J which altho! h the2 ha9e 9ali4it2J 4o not mean that +ro'essional mis!se can )e con'o!n4e4 with the in9ali4it2 o' +ro'essional metho4.H There are charla; tans in the Ch!rch;as Darwin took care to +oint o!t;an4 there is chicaner2 in reasonin an4 statistical inter+retation in science; which sometimes takes the 'orm o' a9oi4in 'alsi'ia)ilit2 3CohenJ 19:1R %eehlJ 190A/19A0R <o++erJ 19>0/196:R also see $etherickJ 199>J on 9eri'ication5. ?o what else is new. <ost;mo4ern rePection o' 4!alism all )!t locks o!t an2 o!tsi4e criterion )2 which a scientist can 4e'en4 one +osition a ainst another. "n2 'a9orin o' a +ositionJ sa2 e9ol!tionJ an4 rePection o' anotherJ sa2 creationismJ is consi4ere4 ar)itrar2R its onl2 anim!s an4 e''ect is social an4 +olitical +ower. Ne9erthelessJ sa2in that science is ar)itrar2 in its 4eclaration o' he emon2J )eca!se it 4oes not s!)mit to the ar)itrar2 r!le that social +ower is whate9er is hel4 as s!chJ is onl2 one ste+ in the cate or2 con'!sion intro4!ce4 )2 &er en 3199.5 an4 s!++orte4 )2 reasonin that with eno! h comm!nalit2 o' K9oiceJK the ar)itrar2 is ma4e !nar)itrar2 3?am+sonJ 199:5. " '!rther ste+ is &er enHs inP!nction a)o!t +rono!ncements;which a++l2 to science as K4ema o 2#K 2o! canHt talk a)o!t the ar)itrar2 in the other 'ellowHs +osition witho!t )ein ar)itrar2 2o!rsel'. For a scientist to sa2 4e'ensi)l2 that an2one elseHs +ers+ecti9e is ar)itrar2 s! ests a +arallel or !n4erl2in tr!e state o' a''airs;or 'acts. B!t this is a 4!alistic ass!m+tion re'errin to some ontolo ical re'erentJ whether as an in4e+en4ent wa2 o' reasonin J )2 s2ntacticall2 +arsin J or )2 +ositin a real +h2sical worl4 o!tsi4e o' +henomenolo ical ex+erience.

"T# Data @ Tr!th

No 7ink Facts Not Tr!th
2NC $/ <8/F/8/NC/ F"CT?J NOT T81T= "VO*D? EO18 7*NK
Fisher 99 I=arwoo4 Fisher Cit2 Colle e o' the Cit2 1ni9ersit2 o' New Eork Context an4 Cate or2# The <ost;%o4ern <ower <olitics o' /x+ro+riation Co!rnal o' Theoretical an4 <hiloso+hical <s2. Vol. 1>J No. 2J 199>L IctL =!sserl 31900/19A0R 191:/19:15 4istin !ishes )etween 'act an4 tr!th. Facts are em+irical e9ents;+artic!lar ha++enin s or ex+eriences that ma2 )e collecte4 an4 reasone4 a)o!t;tr!ths are lo ical necessities. ?omeJ incl!4in +s2cholo ists;+erha+s in ser9ice o' the em+iricist 4ream o' )ein a)le to 4is+la2 e9er2thin 3Deel2J 19905;'!se lo ic an4 'actsJ i. e.J re'er to lo ical r!les as interchan ea)le with o)ser9a)le 'act or with social e9ents. Not onl2 4oes this sim+li'ication isolate the +s2cholo ist 'rom lo ic as an o!tsi4e criterion an4 'rom anal2sis as a metho4 o' reason )2 which to o++ose an4 !+t!rn ina4eM!ate K'rameworksJK )!t alsoJ there are res!ltant re4!ctions an4 con'late4 cate ories an4 +henomena all o9er the +lace. "n exam+le is that 'or )eha9iorists the oal is to 4escri)e )eha9iorR so lo ical r!les are )eha9iors. This is neatJ )!t s!)Pect to the M!estion;)e in an4 cate or2 mistakes s!ch as in'inite re resses o' ex+lanation. " ainJ e9er2thin one can talk a)o!t is swe+t within the com+ass o' a molar entit2;a mani'ol4 or context. For ra4ical inter+retations o' text an4 4isco!rse 3?tenner U /cclestonJ199.5J the oal is a 4i''erent sort o' monism than one o' )eha9ior in the +lace o' 4!alities o' min4 an4 )o42R the oal is a social analo 2 o' 4isco!rse as meta+h2sicall2 constit!ti9e. ?till monism it is# e9er2thin is whatHs sai4R so nothin is hi44en. %2 +oint is that 4!alit2 is a necessar2 o' lan !a e itsel'R since lan !a e either re'ers to somethin other than itsel'J or else ontolo 2 is cate oriall2 se+arate 'rom what lan !a e is. "n2 wa2 one slices itJ cate ories rea++earR an4 oneHs )est )et to com+are an4 reason a)o!t cate ories is some sort o' lo ical sense o' how the2 relate. 8icoe!r consistentl2 tries to come to ri+s with 4!alit2. * will +!t the thesis )ol4l2# lan !a e is not a s!)stit!te 'or realit2. 8icoe!r 319A05 ar !es 'or a 4ialectic o' the !nsai4J an4 'or a 4!alit2;a sense o' lan !a e as _s+lit re'erenceH 38icoe!rJ 19AA5. For the social constr!ctionistJ there is no s!ch 4ialecticJ no _s+lit re'erenceHJ no re+resentation 3&er enJ 199.5;P!st co4es as wor4sJ statementJ r!les. Cate ories an4 'acts are 4e4i''erentiate4J P!st as are sel' an4 other. 8icoe!rHs earlier commitments to a 4ialectical nat!re o' lan !a e exten4 to his anal2sis o' the o++ositions )etween sel' an4 other;which can )e 9iewe4 in terms o' a )asic 4istinction )etween ex+erience o' sel' an4 4e'inition o' i4entit2 )2 lin !istic extensions an4 )2 semantic an4 s2ntactic r!les. *n +ositin a sel' o!tsi4e case rammar;the sel' o' ex+erience;8icoe!rHs 4ialectic is exten4e4 to one )etween lan !a e an4 Kact!alK action 31990/19925. " ainJ what ets le't o!t in the +ost;mo4ern re4!ctions to textJ is either an ontolo 2 o' thinkin or a meta+h2sics o' +s2cholo ical acts;or )oth. *n this +a+er the iss!e o' ontolo 2 o' thinkin is +re4icate4 on relatin lan !a e to meanin sJ as re'erentials;)oth )iolo ical an4 +henomenolo ical. B2 s!)s!min e9er2thin within a molar contextJ cate ories are ex+ro+riate4 'rom tho! htsJ an4 'acts are isolate4 'rom 4isco!rse. $ith this state o' a''airsJ 4isco!rse can )e neither lo icall2 o++ose4R nor an o!tsi4e criterion 'or 'act !se4 in the +lace o' social an4 rhetorical +ower to !+t!rn a 'ramework o' knowle4 e. *Hll 4isc!ss this isolation 'rom tho! ht an4 meanin as oneHs relation to context an4 cate ories )e'ore showin how it a++lies to the ironic arro ation o' +ower that either 4ri9es or res!lts 'rom +ost;mo4ern claims that 4isco!rse lies o!tsi4e the +ower +ositions attri)!te4 to scienti'ic knowle4 e an4 to an2 conce+t o' tr!th. *nsi4e an4 O!tsi4e Cate ories * ass!me that one nee4s or4ers o' re'erence to !se lan !a e in a meanin '!l wa2. Facts are +artic!larJ !niM!e instancesR no one 'act is an2 otherR there'oreJ at least in this wa2J instances are o++ose4 to each other. Fact K)K ma2 'all into the same cate or2 as 'act KaJK )!t each +artic!lar has its own locationJ sa2 in a semantic time an4 s+aceJ an4 i' 2o! 9is!aliOe two s!ch locationsJ 2o! can +ict!re +ers+ecti9es or 4imensions o' o++osition. The eneral +oint is that the M!estion o' meanin in9ol9es 4i''erent or4ers o' re'erenceJ an4 thatJ )2 s!ch cate oriOin J 'acts can )e ro!+e4 in str!ct!res o' cate ories +ermittin lo ical P!4 ments. $hile <ia et makes these +oints clear in a n!m)er o' st!4ies on contra4iction an4 in his eneral 9iews o' the relation o' 'ormal to nat!ral lo ic 319A0/19A2R 19A./19605J one 4oes not ha9e to et into a 4e)ate here a)o!t 'ormal an4 nat!ral lo icR sinceJ lo icians will a4mit that si'tin o!t lin !istic re'erentials 'rom lo ical transactions is an i4eal. *t is n&% m2 +!r+ose here to anal2Oe a _cate or2H an4 its relation to the str!ct!re o' ro!+in s merel2 on an a)stract le9elR instea4J m2 +oint is 4irecte4 to a tar et cate or2J one relatin to 'rameworks o' social e+istemolo 2;mo4els that H+s2cholo ists !se to know thin s a)o!t +eo+leR in 7an erHs terms 3190A5J methods or ways to know something. * tar et the cate or2 )2 +ointin to one s+eci'ic as+ect o' s!ch mo4elsJ namel2J the 4e ree to which the2 can )e Ko!tsi4eK or in4e+en4ent o' ar)itrariness. To the extent that science as a mo4el is o!tsi4e o' the ar)itrariness o' r!lersJ +riestsJ inM!isitionsJ an4 in4!strial )iasesJ its metho4 sho!l4 not onl2 stan4 o!tsi4e those +artic!lar interestsJ )!t also )e o!tsi4e o' a eneral cate or2 o' mo4els !se4 or constr!cte4 to exercise he emon2 as social an4 +olitical +ower o9er an4 4etermination o' knowle4 e. *' this secon4 t2+e o' o!tsi4e4ness is not inherent in scienti'ic metho4J thenJ o' co!rseJ it )ecomes s!)Pect to the same set o' acc!sations o' ar)itrariness ma4e )2 those in the se9enteenth cent!r2 who attacke4 4octrines o' in'alli)ilit2 an4 the like.

"T# Data @ Tr!th

/GT
TO D/NE T81T= B/CO%/? " ?/7F;F17F*77*N& <8O<=/CE 8/*NFO8C*N& ?OC*"7 D/T/8%*N*?%
Fisher 99 I=arwoo4 Fisher Cit2 Colle e o' the Cit2 1ni9ersit2 o' New Eork Context an4 Cate or2# The <ost;%o4ern <ower <olitics o' /x+ro+riation Co!rnal o' Theoretical an4 <hiloso+hical <s2. Vol. 1>J No. 2J 199>L IctL The social constr!ctionists ar !e that socio;+olitical +ower o9er the sel' is exerte4 )2 instit!tions an4 their 4isco!rse tra4itions. *ronicall2J since the 'ate o' the sel' is tosse4 to a m!ltit!4e o' +ossi)le r!les an4 9al!esJ its K4isen a ementK 'rom sta)le )elie' s2stems 4escri)e4 )2 Brewster;?mith 3199.5J altho! h P!sti'ia)l2 cast as a NietOschian le ac2J 3Ta2lorJ 19915 )ecomes a sel'; '!l'illin +ro+hec2. Too sin le;min4e4 a 'oc!s on a h!man nee4 'or a sta)le )elie' s2stemJ an4 too !ni9ocal a +ro+osal that social i4entit2 is com+letel2 4e+en4ent on the a)sor+tion o' comm!nit2J )ecome )elie's rein'orcin the in4i9i4!alHs sense;an4 ex+erience;o' 4omination )2 external 'orces.

"T# <erm Do Both

2NC
1. 2. C"NHT </8% " F8"%/$O8K "8&1%/NT EO1 /*T=/8 %//T *T O8 EO1 DONHT V*O7"T*ON? <8OV/ %1T1"77E /GC71?*V*TE /7?/ *T? ?/V/8"NC/ $=*C= *? " VOT/8 </8%*N& "NET=*N& OT=/8 T="N (VOT/ N/& ON <8/?1%<T*ON, *? *NT8*N?*C $=*C= *? 1N<8/D*CT"B7/ "ND *NF*N*T/7E 8/&8/??*V/ VOT/8 FO8 F"*8N/??

"T# /xtra;8esol!tional B!r4en

2NC
1. D"T" *? *N/V*T"B7/ T=/E 1?/ D"T" TOO TO /?T"B7*?= T=/*8 T81T=? $*T= (D1"7*F*C"T*ON?HJ (D"T/,J <//8;8/V*/$J "ND =*?TO8*C C"?/ ?T1D*/? T=/?/ /<*?T/%O7O&*C"7 D1/?T*ON? /G*?T <8*O8 TO T=/ 8/?O71T*ON B/C"1?/ *T? 2O3 $/ D/T/8%*N/ 2O3 $/ "FF*8% O8 N/&"T/ *T NO *%<"CT " D/C"D/ " F8"%/$O8K D/B"T/? <8OV/ T=/ 8/?O71T*ON *? " T"N&/NT "T B/?T TO %OD/8N C8*T*D1/ D/B"T/ $*T=O1T "NE /D1C"T*ON"7 /FF/CT.

2.

"T# C/* C!4 e Discretion/ Not Voter

2NC
7/TT*N& C1D&/? $/*&= C"8D BE C"8D *? " (8/"?ON"B*7*TE, C7"*% 8/C/CT *T.
1. O18 V*O7"T*ON D/B"T/ <8OV/? T=/EH8/ NOT /V/N 8/"?ON"B7/ T=/E DONHT %//T "NE OF T=/ C8*T/8*" $/ *D/NT*T*FE "ND Q/77N/8 <8OV/? *T? NO$=/8/ N/"8 8/"?ON"B7/ ?OC*"7 ?C*/NC/ "ND C*TE OF T1C?ON <8OV/? D1"NT*F*C"T*ON <8OD1C/? T=/ %O?T 8/"?ON"B7/ 8/?17T?. *T? ?*%<7/# O18 D" T"K/? O1T C"?/ "ND O1T$/*&=? *T.

2.

:.

C1D&/ *NT/8V/NT*ON ; 7/"V*N& *T TO T=/ (C1D&/, TO D/C*D/ <8OB"B*7*T*/? ON " C"?/ BE C"?/ B"?*? *? /G"CT7E =O$ $/ &OT *NTO T=*? %/?? *NTO T=/ F*8?T <7"C/. F"CT7/?? *D/O7O&*/? "ND B*"?/? $*77 C8//< *NTO T=/ D/C*?*ON C"7C171? $=*C= I" $="T " %"CO8*TE OF C1D&/ *NT/8V/NT*ON I" ?T*CK TO " ?T8ON& D"T" ?T"ND"8D TO <8/V/NT *NF*N*T/ 8/&8/?? *NTO B"?/7/?? C7"*%? O8 "8B*T8"8E D/C*?*ON?. VOT*N& N/& *? "N *NC/NT*V/ ; *T D/N*/? T=/ (*NC/NT*V/, B/N/F*T OF (VOT*N& N/& ON (<8/?1%<T*ON, ; TO *ND*V*D1"77E $/*&= "8O1ND T=/ ?T8*CT C8*T/8*" /?T"B7*?=/D "ND ?T*77 VOT/ "FF F1NCT*ON"77E T"K/? "$"E T=/ ($*N, ; T/"%? $*77 <8/<"8/ 7/??J C1D&/? $*77 C"8/ 7/??J "ND T/"%? $*77 &O B"CK TO $/"K D"T" T=*? *? " 7*N/"8 /D1C"T*ON"7 N/TB/N/F*T TO O18 *NT/8< ON7E T=/ B"77OT C"N &/T

>. "ND $/H77 <8OV*D/ ?T8ON& D"T" C1D&/? /%<*8*C"77E C"NHT "CC/?? 8*?K C"?/ BE C"?/ Visc!si 99 I$. Ki+ =ar9ar4 7aw ?chool (=ow Do C!4 es Think a)o!t 8iskW, "merican 7aw an4 /conomics 8e9iew V* N1/2 1999 320; 025L IctL The stan4ar4 economic +rescri+tion 'or 4eterminin an e''icient le9el o' sa'et2 is to assess whether the )ene'its o' the sa'et2 im+ro9ement excee4 the cost. For contin!o!s chan es in sa'et2J the M!estion is whether sa'et2 le9els ha9e )een increase4 !ntil the mar inal )ene'its P!st eM!al the mar inal costs. These same kin4s o' +rinci+les 'orm the 'o!n4ation 'or law an4 economics inter+retation o' ne li ence r!les as well.6 C!4 es consi4ere4 one o' three s!r9e2 M!estions 4esi ne4 to test the 4e ree to which the2 wo!l4 a++l2 the +rinci+les em)o4ie4 in this stan4ar4 ne li ence test. The cost o' the sa'et2 im+ro9ement in e9er2 instance was Z2J000. *n a44itionJ the ex+ecte4 )ene'its o' the sa'et2 im+ro9ementJ which eM!al the re4!ction in the risk +ro)a)ilit2 m!lti+lie4 )2 the siOe o' the lossJ eM!ale4 Z1J>00 in e9er2 instance. Th!sJ a++l2in the ne li ence r!le as cast in law an4 economics terms wo!l4 s! est that the sa'et2 meas!re was not e''icient an4 that the 'irm sho!l4 not )e hel4 lia)le 'or the re+air. The three ex+erimental mani+!lations 9arie4 the +ro)a)ilit2 o' the acci4ent an4 the siOe o' the loss )!t hel4 constant the ex+ecte4 9al!e o' the loss that wo!l4 )e +re9ente4 )2 !n4ertakin the Z2J000 re+air. *n the 'irst instanceJ P!4 es consi4ere4 a +ro+ert2 4ama e loss o' Z1>J000 co!]+le4 with a risk +ro)a)ilit2 o' 1/10 that wo!l4 )e eliminate4 thro! h the sa'et2 re+air. The ex+ecte4 loss is conseM!entl2 Z1J>00J which is less than the re+air cost. The secon4 9ariant increase4 the siOe o' the +ro+ert2 4am]a e )2 a 'actor o' 100 to Z1.> millionJ re4!cin the +ro)a)ilit2 o' loss )2 a 'actor o' 100 to eM!al 1/1J000J lea9in the ex+ecte4 loss !nchan e4 at Z1J>00. The thir4 9ariant increase4 the siOe o' the loss to Z1.> )illionJ which incl!4e4 the 9al!e o' +ersonal inP!r2 lossesJ an4 accom+anie4 it with a +ro)a)ilit2 o' the loss o' 1/1J000J000. Th!sJ this chan e scale4 losses !+ )2 a 'actor o' 1J000 an4 scale4 the +ro)a)ilit2 4own )2 a 'ac]tor o' 1J000J lea9in the ex+ecte4 loss !nchan e4. For the +ersonal inP!r2 M!estionJ the li9es lost were 9al!e4 at Z> million +er li'eJ an4 res+on4ents were tol4 that this amo!nt wo!l4 re'lect the '!ll social 9al!e o' the loss. *n e9er2 instanceJ the s!r9e2 in4icate4 that the com+an2 ha4 s!''icient reso!rces to +a2 the 4ama es.9 "n exam+le o' one o' these M!estions 3the interme4iate case5 is the 'ollowin # Eo! are C/O o' 8ock2 %o!ntain "irline. The car o 4oor on the +lane 4oes not o+erate +ro+erl2. Fixin it costs Z2J000. *' it is not 'ixe4J there is a)sol!tel2 no sa'et2 risk. Ver2 relia)le en ineerin estimates in4icate that there is onl2 a 1/1J000 chance o9er the ex+ecte4 li'e o' the +lane that there will )e a total loss to 2o!r com+an2 o' Z1.> million 4!e to +ro+ert2 4ama e ca!se4 )2 this +ro)lem. Th!sJ there is a 999/1J000 chance that there will )e no 4ama e whatsoe9er. Eo!r com]+an2 has no ins!rance )!t 4oes ha9e s!''icient reso!rces to +a2 these 4ama es.1^ 8es+on4ents were then aske4 to circle whether the 'irm sho!l4 !n4er]take the re+air an4 secon4J i' the re+air is not !n4ertaken an4 there was Z1.> million in +ro+ert2 4ama esJ to in4icate whether +!niti9e 4ama es sho!l4 )e awar4e4. =ow one 9iews the scenario 4e+en4s in +art on the test )ein a++lie4. The chie' exec!ti9e o''icer 3C/O5 o' the com+an2 sho!l4 +res!ma)l2 )e concerne4 with +ro'it maximiOation. The sa'et2 meas!res 4escri)e4 in9ol9e4 'inancial e''ects that wo!l4 all )e

internaliOe4 )2 the 'irm. ?ince sa'et2 im+ro9ements 'ail a )ene'it;cost testJ the2 wo!l4 not enhance 'irm +ro'ita)ilit2. C!4 es res+on4in as C/Os mi htJ howe9erJ im+!te a loss in the 9al!e o' the com+an2Hs re+!tation in the e9ent o' an acci4ent in9ol9in +ersonal inP!r2J makin them more likel2 to a49ocate sa'et2 im+ro9ements in this instance. "++lication o' le al r!les sho!l4 not )e a''ecte4 )2 )roa4l2 )ase4 re+!tational e''ects. *' a sa'et2 meas!re 4oes not +ass a )ene'it;cost testJ the com+an2 sho!l4 not )e 'o!n4 ne li ent 'or 'ailin to a4o+t it. <!niti9e 4ama es +ertain to sit!ations o' reckless )eha9ior. To )e recklessJ not onl2 m!st the 'ore one sa'et2 meas!re +ass a )ene'it;cost test )!t +res!ma)l2 there sho!l4 )e a wi4e s+rea4 )etween )ene'its an4 costsJ a re+eate4 'ail!re )2 the com+an2 to a4o+t sa'e +racticesJ or other consi4erations that make the com+an2 tr!l2 reckless an4 not sim+l2 ne li ent. *n none o' the three scenarios is there an2 )asis 'or awar4in +!niti9e 4ama es. *n4ee4J )2 constr!ction the com+an2 will ne9er )e ne li ent 'or 'ailin to a4o+t the sa'et2 im+ro9ement. Ta)le > s!mmariOes the res+onses to the two M!estions 'or each o' the risk scenarios. *n the case o' the low +ro+ert2 4ama e amo!ntJ 06F o' the P!4 es wo!l4 not !n4ertake the re+airJ which is consistent with economic e''icienc2 +rinci+les. "lmost a thir4 o' the sam+le wo!l4 !n4ertake the re+air e9en tho! h the cost o' the re+air was )elow the ex+ecte4 )ene'its.

The attit!4e towar4 +!niti9e 4ama es in this low loss case shown in <anel " o' Ta)le > 4i''ers mo4eratel2J 4e+en4in on whether re+airin the +lane to +re9ent a Z1>J000 loss is attracti9e. *n each caseJ a minor]it2 o' the P!4 es )elie9e that +!niti9e 4ama es wo!l4 a++l2 i' the re+air was not !n4ertaken an4 a loss occ!rre4J where the 'raction 'a9orin +!ni]ti9e 4ama es is reater 'or those who chose to re+air the +lane. $hat is +erha+s most strikin is that three o' the P!4 es who 4i4 not )elie9e that the +lane sho!l4 )e re+aire4 ne9ertheless wo!l4 ha9e awar4e4 +!niti9e 4ama es ha4 the +lane not )een re+aire4 an4 a loss was s!''ere4. For the entire ro!+J 16F o' the P!4 es wo!l4 awar4 +!niti9e 4ama esJ which is not in line with economic e''icienc2 +rinci+lesJ since not onl2 are +!niti9e 4ama es not warrante4 )!t )ase4 on a ne li ence test the re+airs sho!l4 not e9en )e !n4ertaken. <anel B o' Ta)le > in4icates how the res+onses chan e i' the stakes are increase4 )2 a 'actor o' 100 an4 the +ro)a)ilit2 o' 4ama es is re4!ce4 )2 a 'actor o' 100. C!4 es in this instance are almost e9enl2 4i9i4e4 as to whether the +lane sho!l4 )e re+aire4. 8es+on4ents who 4i4 not in4i]cate that re+airin the +lane was worthwhile almost !nanimo!sl2 o++ose4 +!niti9e 4ama esJ whereas 'or the res+on4ents who 'a9ore4 re+airin the +lane there was an eM!al 4i9ision )etween those who s!++orte4 +!niti9e 4ama es an4 those who 4i4 not. The 'inal 9ariation in <anel C increases the loss to Z1.> )illionJ which incl!4es the 9al!e o' +ersonal inP!riesJ where the s!r9e2 in4icate4 that this 4ama es amo!nt is inten4e4 to re'lect the '!ll social cost o' the acci]4ent. "s )e'oreJ the ex+ecte4 loss is Z1J>00J )!t the res+onses 4i''er M!ite starkl2 'rom those in the +re9io!s scenarios. 8es+on4ents are now !nanimo!s that the +lane sho!l4 )e re+aire4. %oreo9erJ more than two;thir4s o' the res+on4ents s!++orte4 +!niti9e 4ama es in this instance. $hat a++ears to )e most conseM!ential is thatJ in sit!ations in9ol9in +ersonal inP!r2J there is a m!ch reater willin ness to !n4ertake re+airs an4 im+ose +!niti9e 4ama es than in simt!ations in9ol9in +ro+ert2 4ama e e9en tho! h the ex+ecte4 economic losses are the same in each instance. The res!lts in <anel C 'or )oth the awar4 o' +!niti9e 4ama es an4 re+air]in the +lane 4i''er to a statisticall2 si ni'icant 4e ree 'rom the res!lts in <anels " an4 B. Ta)le 0 re'ines this anal2sis !sin +ro)it re ressions 'or the 4eterminant o' the +ro)a)ilit2 that the res+on4ent will in4icate that the car o 4oor sho!l4 )e re+aire4 an4 that +!niti9e 4ama es sho!l4 a++l2. The le9el o' 4ama es 4oes not ha9e a si ni'icant e''ect on the car o 4oor re+air 4ecision. $hat 4oes matter is the nonmonetar2 character o' the lossJ which was s!''icientl2 in'l!ential that these res+on4ents co!l4 not )e incl!4e4 in the re+air eM!ation. There was no 9ariation in this scenario ro!+J as

all res+on4ents in the +ersonal inP!r2 9ariant 'a9ore4 re+airin the car o 4oor. The im+licit 9al!e o' li'e meas!res an4 the risk +erce+tion meas!res are not statisticall2 si ni'icantJ exce+t 'or one instance. 8es+on4ents who ha4 hi her 9al!es o' the +erce+tion eM!ations slo+e coe''icient ?i were less likel2 to !n4ertake the car o 4oor re+air. *ncrease4 9al!es o' 1:J in4icate that the res+on4entsH assesse4 +ro)a)ilities were closer to the .>^ line an4 th!s ten4e4 to re'lect the act!al risk le9el more acc!ratel2. Th!sJ acc!rate risk )elie's an4 lower )iases in risk +erce+tions are associate4 with P!4 es )ein more willin to act accor4in to e''icienc2 norms with res+ect to the car o re+air 4ecision. " +riori the role o' this 9aria)le is not clearJ since hi her 9al!es o' ?i co!l4 in4icate more alarmist res+onses to risk in that +ercei9e4 risks res+on4 more M!ickl2 to chan es in act!al risks. ?ince all ?i 9al!es were )elow 1.0J howe9erJ in this case the 9aria)le seems to )etter re'lect the acc!rac2 o' risk P!4 ments. This 9aria)le is notJ howe9erJ 4irectl2 in'l!ential in the +!niti9e 4ama es 4ecisionJ as the onl2 statisticall2 si ni'icant 9aria)les here are the le9el o' ex+ecte4 4ama es an4 whether the P!4 e )elie9es that re+airin the car o 4oor was worthwhile. Th!sJ to the extent that the risk +erce+tion slo+e 9aria)le mattersJ it is in4irectl2 in that it increases the +ro)a)ilit2 that the res+on4ent will want to re+air the car o 4oorJ which in t!rn increases the +ro)a)ilit2 that the res+on4ent )elie9es that +!niti9e 4ama es sho!l4 a++l2. O9erallJ howe9erJ it seems that +erce+tional )iases an4 the res+on4entHs own im+licit 9al!es o' li'e 4o not +la2 a central role in how the2 wo!l4 a44ress the ne li ence iss!e or the +!niti9e 4ama es iss!e in this instance. "ttit!4es towar4 the !n4erl2in re+air 4ecision an4 the siOe o' the acci4ent loss are the +rimar2 'actors o' conseM!ence. "n attracti9e as+ect o' this 'in4in is that +ersonal +re'erences an4 +erce+tional )iases 4o not reatl2 a''ect ne li ence P!4 ments. =owe9erJ the siOe o' the stakes i4eall2 sho!l4 not matterJ since the ex+ecte4 losses 3i.e.J +ro)a)ilit2 x 4ama e5 is the same in e9er2 instance. "ltho! h +ersonal risk +erce+tion )iases an4 risk 9al!ations 4o not a++ear to )e instr!mentalJ the res!lts are not entirel2 'a9ora)le with res+ect to the so!n4ness o' P!4icial 4ecisions. *n terms o' the o9erall res+onses to the scenariosJ P!4 es were e9enl2 4i9i4e4 )etween re+airin an4 not re+airin the +laneJ e9en tho! h strict a++lication o' economic ne li ence r!les wo!l4 in4icate that not re+airin the +lane was 4esira)le. %oreo9erJ e9en tho! h the 'irm was not ne li ent in these exam+lesJ man2 P!4 es )elie9e that +!niti9e 4ama es were a++lica)leJ +artic!larl2 when nonmonetar2 losses are hi h. "war4in +!niti9e 4ama es when a 'irm meets a ne li ence stan4ar4 is certainl2 ina++ro+riateJ as it in4icates a 'ail!re to re'lect on the !n4erl2in )ene'it;cost tra4eo''sJ +artic!larl2 when there are lar e nonmonetar2 stakes. This res!lt is a so)erin messa e 'or com+anies 'ace4 with risk;cost calc!lations. *' these com+anies 'ollow the !r in s o' P!4icial scholars s!ch as C!4 e Frank /aster)rook an4 attem+t to think s2stematicall2 a)o!t the risks an4 costs o' their actionJ then e9en i' the2 make the correct economic 4ecision it is +ossi)le that the2 will risk +!niti9e 4ama esJ +ar]tic!larl2 when nonmonetar2 conseM!ences are in9ol9e4.11 *n the &eneral %otors 3&%5 tr!ck si4e im+act caseJ &% ha4 calc!late4 the cost o' the sa'et2 im+ro9ement an4 concl!4e4 that these costs were not o!twei he4 )2 the ex+ecte4 sa'et2 )ene'its.12 This anal2sis +arallele4 the a++roach taken 'or the For4 <into. These anal2ses !n4er9al!e4 the +ersonal inP!r2 loss )2 consi4erin onl2 the +ros+ecti9e co!rt awar4s an4 not also the im+licit 9al!e o' li'e an4 health. /9en i' the calc!lations ha4 )een 4one correctl2 an4 ha4 enerate4 the res!lt that the sa'et2 im+ro9ements were not worthwhile on an economic )asisJ howe9erJ then it is M!ite +ossi)le that the com+an2 wo!l4 ne9ertheless ha9e )een 'o!n4 lia)le 'or +!ni]ti9e 4ama es. The com+an2 ha4 con'ronte4 the risk 4ecision with ex+licit +ro)a)ilities o' riskJ clear +otential 'or a49erse health e''ectsJ an4 a le9el o' costs that wo!l4 not ha9e Peo+ar4iOe4 the sol9enc2 o' the com+an2. *' com+anies cannot rel2 on economic e''icienc2 +rescri+tions or ne li ence r!les 'or 4eterminin the le9el o' sa'et2 a'ter s!ch an anal2sisJ then there ma2 )e no sa'e har)or other than the Oero;risk le9elJ which is in'easi)le.

C"8D CONT*N1/?
The two ke2 M!estions ex+lore4 in this article were whether these as+ects o' in4i9i4!al +re'erences in 9al!ation a''ecte4 attit!4es in P!4i]cial contexts an4 whether 4ecisions in these contexts exhi)ite4 'orms o' irrationalit2 that ha9e )een i4enti'ie4 in the literat!re. C!4 esH a++lication o' ne li ence r!les )ecame m!ch more o!t o' line with stan4ar4 law an4 economic +rescri+tions once s!)stantial non+ec!niar2 4ama es were in9ol9e4. 7ar e stakesVsmall +ro)a)ilit2 catastro+hic e9ents seeme4 to +ose reater +ro)lems 'or P!4icial 4ecision makin than 4i4 hi her +ro)a)ilit2Vlower loss e9ents. The +otential 'or s!ch errors an4 the lar e costs o' error in terms o' incorrect maPor +enalties hi hli ht the +otential )ene'its o' P!4icial re9iew 'or s!ch lar e stakes cases.

D"T" ?"%/ C*T/

This article will examine the res+onses )2 a sam+le o' 9> state P!4 es to a written s!r9e2 a)o!t risk 4ecisions. "ltho! h reliance on the res!lts o' a M!estionnaire ma2 not ca+t!re the +artic!lar )iases that are most in'l!ential in act!al P!4icial 4ecisionsJ it 4oes +ro9i4e a str!ct!re4 'rame]work 'or ex+lorin a wi4er ran e o' iss!es than can )e examine4 !sin case 4ata. The P!4 es in the sam+le were +artici+ants in the law an4 economics +ro rams o''ere4 )2 the 1ni9ersit2 o' Kansas 7aw an4 Or a]niOational /conomics Center. The P!4 es were sent these written s!r9e2s )e'ore the +ro ram )e an an4 ret!rne4 the s!r9e2s )e'ore +artici+atin in the +ro ramJ where the s!r9e2 'orme4 the )asis 'or class 4isc!ssion. The res+onse rate was close to 100F. The sam+le consiste4 o' +ro ram +artici+ants in two 4i''erent sessionsJ )oth o' which took +lace in 199A. "ltho! h the meetin s were in Co++er %o!ntainJ Colora4oJ an4 ?ani)elJ Flori4aJ +artici+ants in the +ro ram were 'rom state co!rts thro! ho!t the co!ntr2. The +artici+ants incl!4e4 man2 P!4 es 'rom state co!rts o' a++ealsJ state s!+erior co!rtsJ an4 state s!+reme co!rts. The ex+erience )ase o' the sam+le conseM!entl2 is likel2 to )e reater than that o' the a9era e state co!rt P!4 e.

"T# C/* C!4 e Discretion

"7T <re4ictions %arket
2NC
$/ ?=O17D C8/"T/ " (<8/D*CT*ON? %"8K/T, T="T E4,#ICIT#$ </N"7*T*Q/? </O<7/ $=O %"K/ B"D <8/D*CT*ON? T=*? D*?C7O?18/ "ND *NV/?T*&"T*ON OF T=/ %/T=ODO7O&E OF "1T=O8 <8/D*CT*ON? *? T=/ ON7E $"E TO F*G D/B"T/. D!)ner et al 2011 I?te9en 7e9itt $illiam B. O 4en Distin !ishe4 ?er9ice <ro'essor o' /conomics at the 1ni9ersit2 o' Chica oR ?te+hen C. D!)ner is an awar4;winnin a!thorJ Po!rnalistJ an4 TV an4 ra4io +ersonalit2R %ixichJ a re+orter in B!charestR <hili+ TetlockJ a +s2cholo 2 +ro'essor at <enn an4 a!thor o' /x+ert <olitical C!4 mentR Christina Fan Ja +ro'essor o' mana ement at NE1Ts ?tern )!siness schoolR <r!sacki 4irects the statistics 4i9ision at the 1?D"Ts National " ric!lt!ral ?tatistics ?er9iceR Nassim Tale) <ol2technic *nstit!te o' New Eork 1ni9ersit2 an4 Ox'or4 1ni9ersit2R 8o)in =ansonJ an economist at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 KThe Foll2 o' <re4iction# F!ll Transcri+tK Freakonomics <o4cast C!ne :0L IctL Ihtt+#//www.'reakonomics.com/2011/00/:0/the;'oll2;o';+re4iction;'!ll;transcri+t/L D1BN/8# ?oJ i' 2o! were to ain control o' letTs sa2 a reall2 )i me4ia o!tletJ New Eork TimesJ or NBC TVJ an4 2o! sai4J 2o! knowJ * want to 4is+ense a 4i''erent kin4 o' news an4 anal2sis to the +!)licJ what wo!l4 2o! 4oW =ow wo!l4 2o! s! est )!il4in a mechanism to 4o a )etter Po) o' kee+in all this kin4 o' +oor ex+ert +re4iction o!t o' theJ o'' the airwa9es. T/T7OCK# *Tm so la4 2o! aske4 that M!estion. * ha9e some s+eci'ic i4eas a)o!t that. "n4 * 4onTt think the2 wo!l4 )e all that 4i''ic!lt to im+lement. * think the2 sho!l4 tr2 to kee+ score more. * think thereTs remarka)l2 little e''ort in trackin acc!rac2. *' 2o! ha++en to )e someone like Tom Frie4man or <a!l Kr! manJ or someone whoTs at the to+ o' the +!n4it +eckin or4erJ thereTs 9er2 little incenti9e 'or 2o! to want to ha9e 2o!r acc!rac2 teste4 )eca!se 2o!r 'ollowers are M!ite con9ince4 that 2o!Tre extremel2 acc!rateJ an4 itTs +rett2 m!ch a ame 2o! can onl2 lose. D1BN/8# Can 2o! ima ineW /9er2 time a +!n4it a++eare4 on TVJ the network wo!l4 list his )attin a9era eJ ri ht a'ter his name an4 a''iliation. Eo! think that mi ht c!t 4own on )lowhar4 +re4ictions P!st a little )itW 7ookin )ack at what weT9e learne4 so 'arJ it makes me won4er# ma2)e the 'irst ste+ towar4 +re4ictin the '!t!re sho!l4 )e to acknowle4 e o!r limitations. Orat the 9er2 leastletTs start small. For instance# i' * co!l4 tell 2o! what kin4 o' m!sic * likeJ an4 then 2o! co!l4 +re4ict 'or me some other m!sic *T4 want to hear. That act!all2 alrea42 exists. *tTs calle4 <an4ora 8a4io. =ereTs co;'o!n4er Tim $ester ren. C"8D CONT*N1/? 8o)in ="N?ON# " +re4iction market is )asicall2 like a )ettin market or a s+ec!lati9e marketJ like oran e P!ice '!t!res or stock marketsJ thin s like that. The mechanics is that thereTs a V an asset o' some sort that +a2s o'' i' somethin Ts tr!eJ like whether aJ a +erson wins the +resi4enc2 or a team wins a s+ortin contest. "n4 +eo+le tra4e that asset an4 the +rice o' that asset )ecomes then a 'orecast o' whether that claim is likel2 to )e tr!e. D1BN/8# ThatTs 8o)in =ansonJ an economics +ro'essor at &eor e %ason 1ni9ersit2 an4 an a4mitte4 a49ocate o' +re4iction markets. "s =anson sees itJ a +re4iction market is 'ar more relia)le than other 'orecastin metho4s )eca!se it a44resses the +esk2 incenti9e +ro)lems o' the ol4;time +re4iction in4!str2. ="N?ON# ?o a +re4iction market i9es +eo+le an incenti9eJ a clear +ersonal incenti9e to )e ri ht an4 not wron . /M!all2 im+ortantJ it i9es +eo+le an incenti9e to sh!t !+ when the2 4onTt knowJ which is o'ten a +ro)lem with man2 o' o!r other instit!tions. ?o i' 2o! as a re+orter call !+ almost an2 aca4emic an4 an4 ask them 9a !el2 relate4 M!estionsJ the2Tll t2+icall2 tr2 to answer themJ P!st )eca!se the2 want to )e hear4. B!t in a +re4iction market most +eo+le 4onTt s+eak !+. /9er2 one o' 2o!r listeners to4a2 ha4 the ri ht to o s+eak !+ on oran e P!ice '!t!res 2ester4a2. /9er2 one o' 2o! co!l4 ha9e one an4 sai4J oran e P!ice '!t!res 'orecasts are too low or too hi hJ an4 almost no one 4i4. $h2W Beca!se most o' 2o! 4onTt think 2o! know. "n4 thatTs P!st the wa2 we want it. ?o in most o' these +re4iction markets what we want is the 'ew +eo+le who know the )est to s+eak !+ an4 e9er2)o42 else to sh!t !+. D1BN/8# <re4iction markets are 'lo!rishin . ?ome o' them are +ri9ate V a m!ltinational 'irm mi ht set !+ an internal market to tr2 to 'orecast when a )i +roPect will )e 4one. "n4 there are 'or;+ro'it +re4iction markets like *nTra4eJ )ase4 in D!)linJ where 2o! can +lace a )et onJ sa2J whether an2 co!ntr2 that c!rrentl2 !ses the /!ro will 4ro+ the /!ro )2 the en4 o' the 2ear. 3"s * s+eakJ that )et has a 1>F chance on *nTra4e.5 =ereTs another *nTra4e )et# whether thereTll )e a s!ccess'!l $%D terrorist attack an2where in the worl4 )2 the en4 o' 201:. 3ThatTs ot a 26F chance.5 Now thatTs startin to so!n4 a little e4 2J noW Bettin on terrorismW 8o)in =anson himsel' has a little ex+erience in this areaJ on a 1.?. o9ernment +roPect he worke4 on. ="N?ON# "ll ri htJ so V )ack in 2000J D"8<"J the De'ense "49ance4 8esearch <roPects " enc2J ha4 hear4 a)o!t +re4iction marketsJ an4 the2 4eci4e4 to '!n4 a research +roPect. "n4 the2 )asicall2 sai4J listenJ weT9e hear4 this is !se'!l 'or other thin sJ weT4 like 2o! to show !s that this can )e !se'!l 'or the kin4 o' to+ics we are intereste4 in. O!r +roPect was oin to )e 'orecastin eo+olitical tren4s in the %i44le /ast. $e were oin to show that +re4iction markets co!l4 tell 2o! a)o!t economic rowthJ a)o!t riotsJ a)o!t +erha+s warsJ a)o!t whether the chan es o' hea4s o' stateS an4 how these thin s wo!l4 interact with each other. D1BN/8# *n 200:J P!st as the +roPect was a)o!t to o li9eJ the +ress hear4 a)o!t it. ="N?ON# On %on4a2 mornin two senators ha4 a +ress con'erence where the2 4eclare4 that the V D"8<"J the V an4 the militar2 were oin to ha9e a )ettin market on terrorism.

="N?ON# "n4 soJ there was a s!44en )!rst o' me4ia co9era e an4 )2 the 9er2 next mornin the hea4 o' the militar2 )asicall2 4eclare4 )e'ore the ?enate that this +roPect was 4ea4J an4 there was nothin more to worr2 a)o!t. D1BN/8# $hat 4o 2o! think 2o! V we collecti9el2J 2o!J in +artic!lar V wo!l4 know now a)o!t that +art o' the worl4J letTs sa2J i' this market ha4 )een allowe4 to take rootWc ="N?ON# $ellJ * think we wo!l4 ha9e otten m!ch earlier warnin a)o!t the re9ol!tions we P!st ha4. "n4 i' we wo!l4 ha9e ha4 +artici+ants 'rom the %i44le /ast 'orecastin those markets. Not onl2 we wo!l4 et a49ance4 warnin a)o!t which thin s mi ht ha++enJ )!t then how o!r actions co!l4 a''ect those. ?oJ 'or exam+leJ the 1nite4 ?tates P!st came in on the si4e o' the 7i)2an re)elsJ to s!++ort the 7i)2a re)els a ainst the Da44a'i re ime. $hatTs the chances that will act!all2 hel+ the sit!ationJ as o++ose4 to make it worseW D1BN/8# B!t i9e me an exam+le o' what 2o! consi4er amon the har4est +ro)lems that a +re4iction market co!l4 +otentiall2 hel+ sol9eW ="N?ON# $ho sho!l4 V not onl2 who sho!l4 we elect 'or +resi4ent )!t whether we sho!l4 o to war here or whether we sho!l4 )e in this initiati9eW Or sho!l4 we a++ro9e this re'orm )ill 'or me4icineJ etc. D1BN/8# ?o that so!n4s 9er2 lo icalJ 9er2 a++ealin . =ow realistic is itW ="N?ON# $ellJ it 4e+en4s on there )ein a set o' c!stomers who want this +ro4!ct. ?oJ 2o! knowJ i' +re4iction markets ha9e an "chilles heelJ itTs certainl2 the +ossi)ilit2 that +eo+le 4onTt reall2 want acc!rate 'orecasts. D1BN/8# <re4iction markets +!t a +rice on acco!nta)ilit2. *' 2o!Tre wron J 2o! +a2J sim+le as that. C!st like the +ro+ose4 law a ainst the witches in 8omania. %a2)e thatTs what we nee4 more o'. =ereTs ?te9e 7e9itt a ain# 7/V*TT# %hen there are big rewards to people who make predictions and get them right, and there are zero punishments for people who make bad predictions because they"re immediately forgotten, then economists would predict that"s a recipe for getting people to make predictions all the time. D1BN/8# Beca!se the incenti9es are all enco!ra in 2o! to make +re4ictions.

"T# C/* C!4 e Discretion

?!+ersense T/
/GT C1D&/ *NT/8V/NT*ON *N *N/V*T"B7/ *T *? *%<O??*B7/ TO 7/T CONT/GT D/T/8%*N/ " C"?/ BE C"?/ B"?*? OF <8OB"B*7*TE T8E*N& TO C8/"T/ ?1C= ?/<"8"T/ ON7E C8/"T/? " <O7*T*C"7 ?1</8?/N?/.
Fisher 99 I=arwoo4 Fisher Cit2 Colle e o' the Cit2 1ni9ersit2 o' New Eork Context an4 Cate or2# The <ost;%o4ern <ower <olitics o' /x+ro+riation Co!rnal o' Theoretical an4 <hiloso+hical <s2. Vol. 1>J No. 2J 199>L IctL *n shortJ re4!cin h!man nat!re to local or im+erialist +ower o9er the lan !a e )2 which to o''iciall2 sa2 what it is;whether the +ower is exercise4 )2 o9erOealo!s research teams or )2 their a4amant critics;sM!eeOes rationalit2 o!t o' the +ict!re. *t is one thin to ar !e that !n4erstan4in an4 a++lication o' tra4itional "ristotelian lo ic reM!ires a context o' rhetoricJ an4 that 9ario!s lo ical an4 rhetorical 'orms are wo9en within the text o' s+eech an4 social 4isco!rse. *t is another to sa2 that )eca!se one can i4enti'2 the rhetorical contexts in which science esta)lishe4 its 9al!es o' rationalit2J that it isJ there'oreJ onl2 )2 '!rther rhetoric that s!ch 9al!es can )e P!4 e4. Daston 3199>5 4istin !ishes )etween a _4istinctH set o' 9al!es in science an4 a _+ri9ile e4H oneR 2et sees historical
context as s!)s!min an2 iss!e o' 42namics that ex+lain or 9al!e lo ical an4 reasone4 ar !ment in makin in'erences a)o!t +ersons or in e9al!atin the social oo4. $hen thinkin an4 its lo ical necessities are re4!ce4 to social constr!ction o' lin !istic contextJ the 4ialectic )etween lan !a e an4 tho! ht 4issol9es into 4ialo !eJ an4 that )etween social 4isco!rse an4 sel' 4isa++earsR 'or i' there were s!ch 4!alitiesJ lan !a e an4 its rhetorical contexts co!l4 )e P!4 e4 a ainst what the2 re'lect o' the in4i9i4!alHs thinkin J an4 social 4isco!rse co!l4 )e hel4 to )e an in4ex o' the will o' the in4i9i4!al. *n the +ost;mo4ernist a)sence o' s!ch 4!alitiesJ P!4 ment o' what is +re+otent in social 4isco!rse an4 rhetorical ar !ment is cotermino!s with s+eech +ractices an4 the social +ower to assert an4 4etermine r!les. 8icoe!r 31990/1992R +. 19A5 reasons alon with "ren4t that +ower an4 its e9ent!al limits is har4 to reco niOe exce+t in the K+ast tense.K The reasons lie in its inextrica)le interconnection with +l!ralit2J on one han4J an4 the tensions towar4 isolatin +owerJ on the other 3"ren4tJ 19>65. Th!sJ seekin +ower is at )est 4oome4 to en4 in contra4iction an4 tensionJ an4 the limits o' +ower ha9e man2 4imensions. *t is !n'ort!nateJ )!t as 8icoe!r +oints o!tJ it is the K reat historical 4e)aclesK that )rin s!ch limits to o!r attention. From the aw'!l 9anta e +oint o' his timeJ Orwell in 19.9 co!l4 )e +ro+hetic an4 warn a)o!t the relation )etween an o9er4e+en4ence on lan !a e an4 its +ower to em+t2 the meanin o!t o' cate ories. =is 4elineation o' the lin !istic excesses an4 totalitarian +ower a''or4e4 )2 d&u5le%-ink artisticall2 s!ms !+ how +olitical control an4 its im+lementation thro! h rhetoricJ e4!cationJ an4/or +ro+a an4a )roker cate ories )2 which +eo+le relate to an4 s+eak a)o!t social e9ents. Th!sJ cate ories can )ecome the Point +ro+ert2 o' 9oices witho!t +ersonal i4entit2. %oreo9erJ "ren4t 319>6/190A5 +oints o!tJ +ower is totaliOe4J +artic!larl2 when a s!s+ension o' lo ic an4 tra4itional o++osition o' cate ories like KcriminalK an4 KinnocentK an4 K oo4K an4 Ke9ilK 4ri9e terms an4 cate ories into meanin lessness. "t s!ch a +ointJ +ower is em)e44e4 in +olitical +ractices# mane!9ersJ r!lesJ sho!tin matchesJ c&u!s an4 +se!4o;science 3%osseJ 19.65. *n OrwellHs anti;!to+ian stateJ cate ories are em+tie4 o!t an4 sim+l2 !se4 instr!mentall2# Big Br&%-er +!ts !+ an illo ical si n K$ar is <eaceJK an4 hor4es are ri++e4 in a totalitarian choke hol4 on moral action. *n ar !ments that 9oices are eM!i9alent an4 in4e+en4ent o' o)Pecti9e stan4ar4sJ an4 that 4i''erences are resol9e4 )2 a Bentham;t2+e calc!l!sJ nominalism +re9ails. Val!es are the social contextR the2 4o not ethereall2 exist o!tsi4e it. "ll thatHs le't is a 9oice co!nt. "ren4t mi ht +!t it that the !niM!e sel';the im+et!s to oneHs ex+ression in a +!)lic s+ace;ma2 et 4rowne4 o!t in the Chor!s

+ost; mo4ern +oster ma2 state KFact is 'iction.K 7amenta)l2J some +s2cholo ists are willin to make the exchan eJ s!ch that the ori inal an4 ori inatin +owers o' the sel' are 'or otten or 4ri9en into alienation 3?ee "ren4tHs conce+t o' actionJ 19>6R Ta2lorHs conce+t o' ori inalit2J 1991R BrentanoHs conce+t o' intentionalit25. BrentanoHs irre4!ci)ilit2 +rinci+le is re+lace4 )2 re resses into social context. This is akin to em+t2in o!t cate ories o' +ersonal ex+erienceJ lea9in 9oice to an2 social text that can )e hear4.
319>65. Corres+on4in l2J i' eno! h 9oices in c!rrent;4a2 social science sho!t 4own whate9er 'acts terms like Ksel'JK K*JK an4 Kconscio!s ex+erienceK are s!++ose4 to re+resentJ a F!rtherJ an4 * 'earJ more 4an ero!sl2J as ar !e4 )2 "ren4t 319>6/ 190A5J i4eas that 4o not relate to 'acts can )ecome i4eolo ies. ?!ch i4eas can )e comman4eere4R an4 when what the2 re+resent a)o!t an in4i9i4!alHs ex+erience is em+tie4 o!tJ li'e 'ollows their Ks!+ersenseK an4 the Kinsanit2K o' their cate ories. $hen terms are meanin '!lJ oo4 is n&% e9ilJ innocence is n&% !iltJ an4 +ersons are n&% n!m)ers. %eanin s are s!)Pect to some le9el o' lo ical 4istinction. $hen there is a lack o' s!ch a 4istinctionJ an4 a res!ltant 'loo4 o' contrar2 meanin sJ 2o! ha9e what "ren4t meant )2 _insanit2.H +olitics onl2 )ecomes se+arate 'rom localit2

No less than in +oliticsJ in +s2cholo 2J es+eciall2 i' s!)s!me4 within +olitical contextJ li'e an4 the social nat!re o' +ersons can )ecome a Ks!+ersenseK;a mani'ol4 o' 4isco!rses within which +ersonsH li9es 4o not relate to the realities o' )iolo ical nee4J nor to the e9ol9e4 str!ct!res o' intelli ence an4 or aniOationJ norJ in shortJ to the h!man )ein Hs innate mechanisms an4 constraints 3?ee "ren4tJ 19>6R +. 19AR /kmanJ 19A:R %almoJ 19A>R <lotkinJ 199.51 ?ince * ass!me that when;e9er +s2cholo ical theories or acc&un%s are +ro''ere4J certain 'acts can;not )e lo icall2 4enie4J * hol4 that &nly the cate ories can )e ex+ro+riate4.

T="T C"1?/? &/NOC*D/ "ND ?"D*?T*C V*O7/NC/

Fisher 99 I=arwoo4 Fisher Cit2 Colle e o' the Cit2 1ni9ersit2 o' New Eork Context an4 Cate or2# The <ost;%o4ern <ower <olitics o' /x+ro+riation Co!rnal o' Theoretical an4 <hiloso+hical <s2. Vol. 1>J No. 2J 199>L IctL The +ractical cost is the socio;+olitical oneJ which historicall2 an4 societall2 re+eats itsel' in e+ic tra e4ies. 8ecent e9ents 'ollowin the 4issol!tion o' the ?o9iet 1nion seem to )e mo9in 'aster than in +re9io!s +erio4s o' histor2J )!t the +attern is the same# the 'all o' em+ires an4 the s!''erin o' +eo+les when a c!lt!reHs 4isco!rse 4omains '!nction as Ks!+ersenseK an4 when the2 neither re+resent in4i9i4!alsH emotions nor the !ni9ersal )o42 nee4s associate4 with s!ch emotions. $or4sJ cate oriesJ slo ans;like KC!st sa2 NoXK;or co4es o' a sociolin !istic comm!nit2 4o n&% seem to work as instr!ments to sto+ in4i9i4!als 'rom internal +h2siolo ical reactions to stress 3see %almoJ 19A>5. Contem+orar2 !ni9erses o' 4isco!rse 4o n&% hol4 in check whate9er im+els an in4i9i4!al;sa2J Ce''re2 Da!mer;or a an ;sa2J one in 8wan4a;to act o!t a ainst others in wa2s so +rime9alJ that 4e+en4enc2 on _social analo 2H to 4escri)e or ex+lain h!man e9ents seems lin !istic Ks!+ersense.K

"T# C/* C!4 e Discretion

/GT
7/"V*N& *T TO T=/ C1D&/? TO "<<7E ON " C"8D BE C"8D B"?*? F"*7? *T $*77 ON7E /NCO18"&/ D/B"T/? OV/8 $/"K D"T".
8a)in 96 I8a)inJ %atthewJ 1ni9ersit2 o' Cali'ornia at Berkele2 <s2cholo 2 an4 economics. B2# Co!rnal o' /conomic 7iterat!reJ 00220>1>J %ar96J Vol. :0J *ss!e 1 Data)ase#B!siness ?o!rce Com+leteL IctL Do ex+erienceJ ex+ertiseJ an4 learnin 9irt!all2 eliminate )iasesW These are reasona)le conPect!resJ an4 s!ch 'actors +ro)a)l2 4o on a9era e mo4erate )iases. B!t the conPect!res 4o not a++ear to )e nearl2 as 9ali4 as economists ima ine. Kahneman an4 T9ersk2 31962a5 an4 T9ersk2 an4 Kahneman 319625J 'or instanceJ +resent ex+eriments with s!)Pects who 9ar2 in their le9el o' statistical so+histicationJ to test whether eneral knowle4 e o' statistics re4!ces or eliminates o)ser9e4 )iases. The res!lts are s!r+risin l2 ne ati9e. %ore enerall2J the research lea4s to mixe4 concl!sions a)o!t when an4 how learnin takes +laceJ )!t 9er2 m!ch 4oes not s!++ort the stron 9ersions o' the ex+erts; et;thin s;ri ht an4 in;the;real;worl4;+eo+le;learn h2+otheses. 8esearch also s! ests we sho!l4 !se extreme ca!tion in 4e'inin the rele9ant notion o' learnin J )eca!se man2 +eo+le who 4o learn eneral +rinci+les 4o not a++l2 those +rinci+les in +artic!lar sit!ations. *n the context o' o9ercon'i4enceJ 'or instanceJ &ri''in an4 T9ersk2 319925 an4 "n4rea Ba!mannJ 8aisa De)erJ an4 &ail Thom+son 319915 concl!4e that people who are aware of their own accuracy overall are overconfident on a case#by#case basis. %hen people understand the limits in their abilities to predict events accurately, they tend not to apply this general knowledge in calibrating the appropriate confidence in individual cases$ Kahneman an4 T9ersk2 31962)J +. .9>5 call s!ch errors errors o' a++licationsJ an4 note that K"n error o' a++lication is most con9incin l2 4emonstrate4 when a +ersonJ s+ontaneo!sl2 or with minimal +rom+tin J cl!tches his hea4 an4 exclaims# H=ow co!l4 * ha9e misse4 thatWHK /9en i' +eo+le learn the rele9ant statistical tr!ths o' their en9ironmentJ the2 ma2 contin!e to make errors in their P!4 ments an4 4ecision makin in e9er2 sin le case. One 'ears that economists ma2 slo++il2 inter+ret s!ch hea4;cl!tchin as e9i4ence 'or the rationalit2 h2+othesisJ rather than a ainst it. B!t e9i4ence that +eo+le see their errors when con'ronte4 with them 4oes not )oost the rationalit2 ass!m+tion as economists !se it. O!r mo4els !se the rationalit2 ass!m+tion as a realiOe4 'eat!re o' h!man )eha9iorJ not merel2 a h!man +otential.c "s was 4emonstrate4 in the context o' con'irmation )ias 4isc!sse4 a)o9eJ Klearnin K can e9en sometimes ten4 to exacer)ate errors. 8elate4l2J &ri''in an4 T9ersk2 319925J a44ress the relationshi+ )etween ex+ertise an4 o9ercon'i4ence. $hen certain 'orms o' +re4icta)ilit2 are hi h an4 when 'ee4)ack takes the 'orm o' !nam)i !o!s statistical e9i4enceJ ex+erts ten4 to ha9e a +rett2 oo4 sense o' how acc!rate their +re4ictions are. *n s!ch casesJ ex+erts not onl2 know moreJ )!t are more realistic than la2+ersons a)o!t how m!ch the2 know. B!t when +re4icta)ilit2 is lowJ ex+erts are o'ten more s!sce+ti)le to o9ercon'i4ence than are la2+ersons. &ri''in an4 T9ersk2 31992J+. .:05 +ro9i4e ill!strations# *' the '!t!re state o' a mental +atientJ the 8!ssian econom2J or the stock market cannot )e +re4icte4 'rom +resent 4ataJ then ex+erts who ha9e rich mo4els o' the s2stem in M!estion are more likel2 to exhi)it o9ercon'i4ence than la2 +eo+le who ha9e a 9er2 limite4 !n4erstan4in o' these s2stems. ?t!4ies o' clinical +s2cholo ists 3e. .J Oskam+ 190>5 an4 stock market anal2sts 3e. .J Eates 19905 are consistent with this h2+othesis.

"T# C/* 8ole+la2in

2NC
1. 2. </8% DO BOT= 8O7/ <7"E "? T=/ F/D/8"7 &OV/8N%/NT "ND ?T*77 %"K/ EO18 D/C*?*ON B"?/D ON ?T8ON& D"T" D1"NT*F*C"T*ON 7/"D? TO B/TT/8 8O7/<7"E*N& B/C"1?/ *T? %"K/? <O7*CE D/C*?*ON %"K*N& B/TT/8 "ND %O8/ /FF*C*/NT T="T? Q/77N/8

"T# C/* *m+licit Citation

2NC

1.

DO/?NHT %//T /G<7*C*T C*T"T*ON *? 8/D1*8/D $/ N//D TO KNO$ $=O D*DJ $=/NJ "ND $="T T=/ ?T1D*/? "8/ TO B/ "B7/ TO D/B"T/ T=/%. FO8C*N& 1? TO 8/?/"8C= *T FO8 T=/% <1T? T=/ ?T"ND"8D TOO =*&= %/"N*N& $/HD "7$"E? 7O?/. *&NO8/? OT=/8 2 V*O7"T*ON? ?"%<7/ ?*Q/ "ND D1"NT*T"T*V/ %/T=OD? T="T $/H8/ *%<"CT/D "BOV/ T=/E DONHT %//T T=*? /V/N *F T=/E ="V/ C*T"T*ON? "ND FOOTNOT/? FO8 ON/ O8 T$O C"8D? T=/E DONHT ="V/ /NO1&= F8O% /V/8E ?T/< OF T=/*8 1"C "DV"NT"&/? F8O% ="8%?J TO $"8J TO /GT*NCT*ONJ NO8 ?O7V/NCE FO8 T=/%. *%<7*C*T C*T"T*ON ON7E D1%B? 1? *NTO "CC/<T F"7?/=OOD? "? F"CT

2. :.

:.

Ba4ke 0> IK4a9i4 )a4keK 7iesJ 4amn liesJ an4 statistics 20 Can!ar2 )2 4)a4keL IctL 7ast ni ht a !2 on TV tol4 me a 4amn lie. This is the kin4 o' lie that 4oesnHtJ at 'irst lanceJ look like a lie at all. The 4amn lie the TV tol4 me was that a certain )ran4 o' 9itamin/n!tritional s!++lement wo!l4 kee+ me 'rom ettin heart attacks. ThatJ o' co!rseJ is not what the a4 act!all2 sai4J )!t it is what it im+lie4 an4 wante4 me to )elie9e. $hat the a4 act!all2 sai4 was that Kst!4ies s! est that Ithe +ro4!ctL ma2 hel+ to re4!ce the risk o' heart 4isease.K This statement is so ri44le4 with !ncertaint2 that it is meanin less. *t +romises nothin . *t 4oesnHt sa2 that these !nname4 st!4ies +ro9e an2thin a)o!t the +ro4!ct 3we 4onHt e9en know i' it was the +ro4!ct )ein st!4ie45. *t 4oesnHt sa2 who 4i4 the st!4ies or whether the2 were acce+te4 as 9ali4 )2 the health care comm!nit2R the2 co!l4 as well ha9e )een 4one )2 the !2 in the mail room o' the com+an2 sellin the +ro4!ct. Citin Kst!4iesK is meant to make !s think that there is some ex+erimental e9i4ence )ehin4 the h2+e. The rest o' the statement tells !s that e9en i' the Kst!4iesK are 9ali4J the2 4onHt hol4 o!t m!ch ho+e. The +ro4!ct onl2 Kma2K ha9e an2 a''ect at all 3what is the +ro)a)ilit2 that it willW 10FW >0FW5J an4 i' it 4oes ha9e an a''ectJ it will onl2 Khel+ to re4!ce the riskK 3hel+ howW 8e4!ce the risk )2 how m!chW $hat riskW5. "nother a4 +ro!4l2 state4 that a certain )ran4 o' skin cream Kma2 hel+ to re4!ce the a++earance o' 'ine linesK on the skin. " oo4 coat o' +laster 4e'initel2 will o)literate the 4ee+est 'iss!res in the skinX Eet another skin cream a4 sai4 that 60F o' the women who !se4 it saw an e''ectJ an4 an astonishin 00F saw an im+ro9ement. $owX &reat o44sX "t the ro!lette ta)leJ an2wa2... "49ertisersJ +oliticiansJ law2ersJ !se4 car salesmen... 4amn liarsJ all o' them. The2 lie )2 tellin !s onl2 +art o' the tr!thR the2 lie )2 mis4irectionR the2 lie )2 !sin twist2 weasel wor4s to im+l2 the o++osite o' what the2 are act!all2 sa2in . $e are lie4 to so contin!o!sl2 that we 4onHt e9en notice an2more. $e ex+ect the liesJ we are !se4 to the liesJ the lies wash o9er !s an4 immerse !sJ ma2)e the lies e9en com'ort !s. Do 2o! tr!st 2o!r +olitical lea4ersW Do 2o! tr!st the !2 tr2in to sell 2o! somethin W $ho 4o 2o! tr!stW

"T# C/* ?tan4+oint /+istemolo 2

2NC
?T8ON& D"T" *? N/C/??"8E FO8 ?T"ND<O*NT /<*?T/%O7O&E TO "VO*D ?T/8/OTE</? "ND DO&%"T*?%
Van =eert!m 0> I8ichar4 Van =eert!m 1ni9ersit2 o' Cali'orniaJ 7os "n eles =ow O)Pecti9e is O)Pecti9it2W " CritiM!e o' C!rrent Tren4s in /4!cational 8esearch 1C7" Co!rnal o' /4!cation an4 *n'ormation ?t!4ies Vol!me 1J *ss!e 2 200> "rticle >L IctL Towar4 a New Vision o' /4!cational 8esearch *n critiM!in +ositi9ismJ =orkheimer o''ere4 4ialectical social theor2 as an alternati9e to the o9er;reliance on the scienti'ic metho4 3KellnerJ 19695. Dialectical social theor2 is 'o!n4e4 on em+irical e9i4ence )!t is !n4erwritten )2 9al!es an4 a normati9e +olitical stan4+oint to attack inP!sticeJ s!''erin J an4 alienation. *t assails the notion o' (9al!e 'ree, research an4 calls 'or the centralit2 o' critiM!e )ase4 on a s2m)iotic relationshi+ )etween theor2J moralit2J an4 +olitics. F!rtherJ it is !n4erwritten )2 an ethical 'o!n4ation )ase4 on minimiOin the !nha++iness o' the +oor an4 s!''erin an4 maximiOin the ha++iness o' all. This in9ol9es locatin the socio;historical so!rces o' s!''erin an4 inP!stice an4 workin to o9ercome them. =ar4in 3200.5 an4 other a4herents o' stan4+oint theor2 ha9e '!rthere4 this +roPect s!)stantiall2 )2 incor+oratin the concerns o' raceJ sex!alit2J an4 en4er into the 4isc!ssion. Takin her lea4 'rom &eor 7!k[csJ )!t alterin the 'ocal +oint 'rom the workin classJ =ar4in has esta)lishe4 the centralit2 o' +ers+ecti9e on research an4 the nee4 to mo9e )e2on4 4escri+tion to +rescri+tion. ?he ar !es that the s!)or4inate +osition o''ers a more acc!rate startin +oint 'or researchJ as it exists +artiall2 or wholl2 o!tsi4e the s2stem an4 4isco!rse that +romote an4 s!stain as2mmetries o' +ower an4 access. B2 attem+tin to eliminate 4ominant ro!+ interests an4 9al!es 'rom researchJ a more acc!rate ren4erin o' the worl4 is +ossi)le that can com)ine with the ethical +rinci+les that seek to era4icate s!''erin an4 o++ression an4 create a more P!st social or4er. <art o' this mo9e is +re4icate4 on a (stron er o)Pecti9it2, that relates to increase4 re'lexi9it2 an4 the +ower o' the o!tsi4er lookin in 'rom a s!)or4inate +osition. *n callin 'or a stron er o)Pecti9it2J howe9erJ is it +ossi)le that critical researchers are 'allin )ack into the 9er2 4isco!rse that the2 seek to o9ercomeW "'ter s+en4in consi4era)le time anal2Oin the intrinsic relationshi+ )etween +ower an4 knowle4 e an4 the +osition that all knowle4 e is context!al an4 sociall2 sit!ate4J it )ecomes 4i''ic!lt to !n4erstan4 how o)Pecti9it2 can )e reclaime4J e9en 'rom the s!)or4inate +osition. Bein o!tsi4e the 4ominant 4isco!rse an4 realit2 mi ht )etter eM!i+ some to 4econstr!ct its )iasesJ )!t how can the2 esca+e their ownW =ow can the2 mo9e )e2on4 their own sit!ation an4 contextW =ar4in )elie9es that o)Pecti9it2 can hel+ )ri4 e the a+ )etween the worl4 we want an4 the worl4 that is 3+.1:65J )!t o)Pecti9it2 seems too closel2 in!re4 to the latter. This is not to sa2 that critical researchers sho!l4 4is4ain startin 'rom a s!)or4inate +ositionJ nor that the2 sho!l4 o9erlook the ke2 ethical +osition o' era4icatin inP!stice an4 o++ression. *t is P!st to ar !e that these +ositions are not necessaril2 more (o)Pecti9e, than those o' the 4ominant 4isco!rse. To )e o)Pecti9eJ remem)erJ is to )e ('ree o' )ias an4 +reP!4ice ca!se4 )2 +ersonal 'eelin s., *t is ()ase4 on 'acts rather than o+inions., $hile stan4+oint theorists are clearl2 not attem+tin to ret!rn to this lo icJ the semantic im+lications are har4 to o9ercome. Co!l4 the lan !a e o' o)Pecti9it2 then con4emn e9en critical research to )ein encase4 within the +ositi9ist +ara4i mW ForJ i' researchers are ca! ht within the s+i4erTs we) o' what the2 can o)ser9eJ then where can the2 'in4 the ins+iration to M!estion what mi ht )eW $here 4oes the !to+ian 9ision o in a more (o)Pecti9e, a++roach to e+istemolo 2J an4 how can researchers esca+e the +rison ho!se o' 4ata that !n4erwrites its com+atriot o' lan !a eW *s it not +ossi)le 'or research to stan4 on the si4e o' an ethical +ositionJ or a wa2 o' 9iewin the worl4J witho!t ha9in to claim its (o)Pecti9e, s!+eriorit2W Can s!ch research not stan4 in a +ri9ile e4 +osition )ase4 on the normati9e ro!n4s o' its incl!si9enessJ re'lexi9it2J an4 em)race o' +l!ralistic 4emocrac2W 8esearch can still start 'rom a stan4+oint with a +artic!lar ethical an4 +olitical +roPect in min4J )!t it sho!l4 a4here to the ri ors o' scienti'ic inM!ir2 an4 ens!re that it is not skewe4 to a i9en en4. Thro! h a )alance4 an4 re'lexi9e a++roachJ a science co!l4 )e im+lemente4 that is 9eri'ia)leJ o+en to critiM!eJ an4 that looks 'or e9i4ence that 4oes not sim+l2 +ro4!ce the res!lts that com+ort with researchersT 4esires. *n this 9isionJ +ractitioners wo!l4 scr!tiniOe research metho4s an4 theor2 'or their limitationsJ lac!nasJ an4 !n4erl2in )iasesJ as the2 work se4!lo!sl2 to en a e 4iscon'irmin e9i4ence an4 alternati9e narrati9es. "t the same timeJ the2 sho!l4 work to a9oi4 4o matism an4 exa erate4 claims a)o!t the si ni'icance o' their research at all costs.

"T# C/* D!ali'ications

2NC
1. 2. :. </8% 8/D1*8/ BOT= ?T8ON& D"T" "ND T=/ "1T=O8 TO B/ D1"7*F*/D T=/E DONHT %//T ; NOT /V/8E C"8D T=/E 8/"D *? (D1"7*F*/D, $/ %//T "77 O18 D"T" C"8D? "8/ F8O% (D1"7*F*/D, <8OF/??O8? "ND ?C*/NT*?T? <8OV*N& $=E ?T8ON& D"T" *? &OOD.

.. DO/?NHT "VO*D O18 /<*?T/%O7O&E D" "5 <O7*CE D/B"T/ T8*V*"7*Q/? $="T %"K/? "N "1T=O8 D1"7*F*/D TO " B"C=/7O8? D/&8// $=*C= %"K/? /V/8EON/ *NC71D*N& NED1*?T "N /G</8T C8/"T*N& %/"N*N&7/?? <O7*CE B5 /V/N D1"7*F*/D "1T=O8? 7*/ "ND *&NO8/ D"T" TOO ; %"NE D1"7*F/D "1T=O8? %"K/ 8*&&/D "ND *D/O7O&*C"77E "<<"8/NT D/C*?*ON? >. D1"7*F*C"T*ON? "8/ " ?C8//N TO 8/?*?T D"T" "ND T81T=;?//K*N& T=/E DONHT <8OV*D/ "NE /D1C"T*ON"7 V"71/

DHCr!O 01 ICarol2n DHCr!O 7aTro)e 1ni9ersit2J "!stralia K$hat %atter $hoHs ?+eakin WKI1L "!thenticit2 an4 *4entit2 in Disco!rses o' ")ori inalit2 in "!straliaL ICTL Ihtt+#//en lish.chass.ncs!.e4!/Po!9ert/9>i:/c4cr.htmL To reiterate# when Fo!ca!lt remarks that it matters little whoHs s+eakin J this is not to +ro+ose that s!)P! ate4 9oices sho!l4 not )e i9en more s+ace to s+eak on their own )ehal'. D!ite the contrar2J as s! este4 )2 Fo!ca!ltHs 4isc!ssion with &illes Dele!Oe on the relations )etween intellect!als an4 +ower.I12L *n intimatin that it matters little whoHs s+eakin J Fo!ca!lt t!rns s+eci'icall2 to acco!ntin 'or the r!les an4 +roce4!res inherin in re imes o' tr!th within s+eci'ic contextsJ which +osition what can )e sai4J an4 who is 4eeme4 the most M!ali'ie4 to s+eakJ )e'ore an2 s+eakin act!all2 takes +lace. ?o with re ar4 to the Oceania 4isc!ssionJ an archaeolo 2 wo!l4 )e intereste4 in examinin what re imes o' tr!th are alrea42 in +la2J )e'ore a s!)Pect act!all2 occ!+ies a +osition that s+eaks a)o!t the constr!ction o' ")ori inal i4entities. *' the 9oices o' ")ori inal +eo+les ha9e )een s!)P! ate4 in the +rocessJ an4 i' the marks o' a!thenticit2 are contesta)le ;; as has )ecome the case with %!4rooroo ;; the M!estion m!st then t!rn to what constraints on s+eakin alrea42 inscri)e what is !ttere4R what constraints con4ition the a!thentication o' an i4entit2R an4 what +ossi)ilities are a9aila)le 'or res!rrectin the silence o' its excl!sions. *n9esti atin s!ch M!estions cannot a9oi4 con'rontin the 9iolence o' the +ast. "n4 here we ret!rn to the iss!e o' com+licit2 )etween 4isco!rses o' resistance an4 4isco!rses o' +ower in the str! le o9er namin an4 contestin i4entit2.

"T# C/* <eer 8e9iew

2NC
1. 2. :. </8% 8/D1*8/ BOT= ?T8ON& D"T" "ND <//8 8/V*/$ <1B7*C"T*ON T=/E DONHT %//T *T NOT /V/8E <"8T OF T=/*8 7O&*C C="*N 8/7*/? ON <//8 8/V*/$ 7O&*C. DO/?NHT "VO*D O18 /<*?T/%O7O&E D" "NET=*N& C"N B/ <//8 8/V*/$/D %/"N*N& T=/ B*B7/ ="? T=/ ?"%/ $/*&=T "? N"?" F7*&=T <7"N? C8/"T*N& %/"N*N&7/?? <O7*CE%"K*N& <//8 8/V*/$ F"*7? $ONHT /N&"&/ ?T8ON& D"T"

..

?ter)a 00 I?on2a K. De+artment o' <s2cholo 2 1ni9ersit2 o' North Carolina at Cha+el =ill %iscon4!ct in the "nal2sis an4 8e+ortin o' Data# Bri4 in %etho4olo ical an4 /thical " en4as 'or Chan e /T=*C? U B/="V*O8J 103.5J :0>:16 2000L IctL EetJ at the +eer re9iew le9elJ there are com+arati9el2 'ewer M!ali'ie4 metho4olo ists a9aila)le to re9iew man!scri+ts than there are man!scri+ts em+lo2in so+histicate4 anal2tic techniM!es 3Cla2J 200>5. Th!sJ metho4olo icall2 so+histicate4 anal2ses ma2 )e re9iewe4 )2 +ro'essionals lackin trainin in the techniM!e that was !se4. Com+o!n4in this iss!eJ there are c!rrentl2 no s2stematic assessments o' 3a5 the a4eM!ac2 or metho4olo ical so!n4ness o' re9iewersTcomments or 3)5 the +ro+ortion o' o9ert trans ressions that are 4etecte4 4!rin +eer re9iew 3KimmelJ 19905. *n 'actJ some Po!rnal e4itors re+ort inci4ents o' re9iewers insistin that a!thors con4!ct metho4olo icall2 ino++ort!ne +roce4!res 3s!ch as a me4ian s+litR 8. %acCall!mJ +ersonal comm!nicationJ Fe)r!ar2 1>J 200>5. %oreo9erJ re9iewers exert a )ias 'or +!)lishin st!4ies with statisticall2 si ni'icant 'in4in s 3Koocher U Keith;?+ie elJ 1996J +. :005. Finall2J re9iewers can 4etect onl2 o9ert trans ressions. 1nmentione4 4ata trimmin or selecti9el2 re+orte4 'it in4exes wo!l4 remain !n4isco9ere4. ?im+l2 +!tJ altho! h +eer re9iewers are s!++ose4 to ens!re the M!alit2J acc!rac2J an4 honest2 o' re+orte4 'in4in sJ the2 4o not ha9e eno! h in'ormation to 4etect the )roa4 9ariet2 o' +otential o9ert an4 co9ert trans ressions.

Data# Ca+italism &oo4

2NC
C"<*T"7*?% 7/"D? TO </"C/
&artOke 0A I/rik &artOke associate professor of political science and a member of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies Columbia University The Capitalist Peace "merican Co!rnal o' <olitical ?cienceJ Vol. >1J No. 1J Can!ar2 200AJ <+. 100191L IctL Concl!sion# The 3Other5 7i)eral <eace This st!42 o''ers e9i4ence s! estin that ca+italismJ an4 not 4emocrac2J lea4s to +eace. "44itional research is nee4e4 to corro)orateJ exten4J an4 e9en re'!te the 'in4in s re+orte4 here. One m!st )e circ!ms+ect in M!estionin a )o42 o' e9i4ence as lar e an4 as care'!ll2 constr!cte4 as that on the 4emocratic +eace. ?tillJ economic li)erals ha9e lon seen in 'ree markets an4 +ros+erit2 the +otential to 4isco!ra e war. " cent!r2 a oJ the (con9entional wis4om, looke4 more like this st!42 an4 less like that o' 4emocratic +eace researchers. $hile +ast ar !ments were clearl2 sim+listic an4 o9er)lownJ there 4oes now seem to )e ro!n4s 'or reconsi4erin li)eral economic +eace theor2. One can reasona)l2 4i''er with m2 9ersion o' classical ar !mentsJ or can +la!si)l2 challen e the ass!m+tions on which m2 9ersion o' the ca+italist +eace is )!ilt. The statistical mo4els * 4e9elo+J an4 the 'in4in s that * +resentJ can )e altere4J +ossi)l2 in wa2s that a ain show that 4emocrac2 matters. For nowJ * ho+e that the claims o' this st!42 are coherentJ em+iricall2 +la!si)leJ an4 at the 9er2 least intellect!all2 +ro9ocati9e. $hat is the (lar er, relationshi+ )etween 4e9elo+mentJ ca+italismJ an4 4emocrac2W *t mi ht )e that 4emocrac2 act!all2 lies )ehin4 the a++arent im+act o' ca+italism on +eace. ?tillJ the worl4 was not alwa2s ma4e !+ o' a lar e +ro+ortion o' 4emocracies. 7ittle attem+t has )een ma4e to r!le o!t the +ossi)ilit2 that 4emocrac2 an4 +eace ha9e commo nca!sesJ or thatJ as has lon )een ar !e4J 4e9elo+ment an4 ca+italism lea4 )oth to 'reer +olitics an4 to a more +eace'!l +lanet. " lo ical extension o' this st!42 is the ex+loration o' 4eterminants o' +olitical an4 economic li)eralismJ tho! h resol9in these more com+lex ca!sal arrows wo!l4 seem to reM!ire a le9el o' !n4erstan4in a)o!t the 4eterminants o' ca+italism an4 4emocrac2 that is still !n4er constr!ction in com+arati9e +oliticsJ economicsJ an4 other 'iel4s. The colla+se o' the ?o9iet 1nion in the earl2 1990s a9e new im+et!s to the ex+loration o' 4omestic 4eterminants o' international relations. To4a2J +olitical re9ol!tion 'rom witho!t is )ein attem+te4 in the %i44le /astJ in no small +art )eca!se +olic2makers )elie9e that +eace can )e ha4 thro! h re ime chan e. *' the im+osition o' li)eral +olitics o''ers a 4omestic +ara4oxJ at the international le9el coercin 4emocrac2 is an extremeJ tho! h ar !a)l2 lo icalJ extension o' 4emocratic +eace theor2. "t the same timeJ allowin +eo+le 'ree4om to choose im+lies that the2 will sometimes choose to 4isa ree. " rowin n!m)er o' +o+!larl2 electe4 lea4ers o++ose the interests o' esta)lishe4 4emocracies. *' 4emocrac2 re'lects the +o+!lar willJ an4 man2 +eo+le in the worl4 are !nha++2J we sho!l4 +erha+s not ex+ect that all new 4emocracies will like the ol4 ones. DemocratiOationJ +ara4oxicall2J im+lies increasin tensions amon 4emocracies. Free markets an4 4e9elo+mentJ in contrastJ lea4 nations closer to etherJ or at 4own ra4e historic territorial animosities.

D"T" ?"%/ C*T/

&artOke 0A I/rik &artOke associate professor of political science and a member of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies Columbia University The Capitalist Peace "merican Co!rnal o' <olitical ?cienceJ Vol. >1J No. 1J Can!ar2 200AJ <+. 100191L IctL

Data# N!clear Deterrence &oo4

1NC
N1C7/"8 $/"<ON? D/C8/"?/ $"8
8a!chha!s 09 I8o)ert De+artment o' <olitical ?cience 1ni9ersit2 o' Cali'orniaJ ?anta Bar)ara /9al!atin the N!clear <eace =2+othesis# " D!antitati9e "++roach Co!rnal o' Con'lict 8esol!tion 2009R >:R 2>6 ori inall2 +!)lishe4 online Fe) >J 2009L IctL The res!lts o' the eneral estimatin eM!ation are +resente4 in Ta)le 1. 7et !s 'irst t!rn o!r attention to the e''ects o' n!clear wea+ons. "s the res!lts clearl2 in4icateJ n!clear wea+ons ha9e statisticall2 si ni'icant e''ects on the chance o' con'lict. This is tr!e 'or )oth s2mmetric n!clear 42a4s in which )oth states +ossess n!clear wea+ons as well as 'or as2mmetric 42a4s in which onl2 one o' the states +ossesses n!clear wea+ons. The res!lts are also s!)stanti9el2 si ni'icant. For a more 4etaile4 s!)stanti9e inter+retation o' the 4ataJ all o' the coe''icients can )e con9erte4 into o44s ratios. For o!r +!r+oses hereJ it is worth notin the si n o' coe''icients an4 the relati9e im+act o' the 9aria)les. ?!)stanti9el2J all o' the coe''icients 'or as2mmetric n!kes an4 s2mmetric n!kes are +ositi9e exce+t 'or one. $hen two states ha9e n!clear wea+onsJ the ne ati9e coe''icient in4icates that the2 are less likel2 to o to war with one another. This coe''icient has the stron est s!)stanti9e e''ect o' all the meas!res o' n!clear 4eterrenceJ an4 the statistical si ni'icance is at the + a .001 le9el. *n all other instances )!t this oneJ the coe''icients are +ositi9eJ which in4icates that states with n!clear wea+ons are more likel2 to en a e in militariOe4 4is+!tes 3crises5J to !se 'orceJ an4 to )e in9ol9e4 in !ses o' 'orce that res!lt in 'atalities. This is tr!e 'or sit!ations o' n!clear s2mmetr2 as well as as2mmetr2J altho! h the e''ect is more +rono!nce4 when )oth states +ossess n!clear wea+ons. =ow 4o these em+irical res!lts mesh with the h2+otheses 4eri9e4 in section threeW The h2+otheses on n!clear s2mmetr2 'in4 stron em+irical s!++ort. The +ro)a)ilit2 o' maPor war )etween two states is in4ee4 'o!n4 to 4ecrease when )oth states +ossess n!clear wea+ons 3=2+othesis 15. ?imilarl2J the +ro)a)ilit2 o' crisis initiation an4 limite4 !ses o' 'orce )etween two states is 'o!n4 to increase when )oth states +ossess n!clear wea+ons 3=2+othesis 25. $hen com)ine4J these res!lts s! est that the sta)ilit2insta)ilit2 +ara4ox is realit2J as o++ose4 to a mere tho! ht ex+eriment. *n contrast to the h2+otheses on n!clear s2mmetr2J the h2+otheses on n!clear as2mmetr2 +er'orm +oorl2. Not onl2 4o the h2+otheses on n!clear as2mmetr2 'in4 no em+irical s!++ort in these res!ltsJ the statisticall2 si ni'icant coe''icients ha9e the o++osite si n than is ex+ecte4. For exam+leJ 42a4s in which one state has n!clear wea+ons are associate4 with an increase4 chance o' war. This is the o++osite o' what =2+othesis : +re4icts. ?imilarl2J =2+othesis . misses the mark in that as2mmetric 42a4s are more +rone to )e in9ol9e4 in militariOe4 4is+!tes an4 con'licts that in9ol9e 'orce or limite4 n!m)ers o' 'atalities.

Table 1 Results

MID (I !"#C$ (II !%T%& (III W%# (I' S(M)U*$ +,-./// (,01 2,13/// (,.4 2,15/// (,.+ 6+.,7+/// (,07 %S(M)U*$ 1,3+/// (,+5 1,7+/// (,+7 1,70/// (,24 1,-1 (,04 C")TI8 2,0-/// (,+7 4,21/// (,24 2,2-/// (,25 2,-./// (,52 DIST%)C$ 61,07/// (,13 61,.7/// (,17 61,3./// (,+1 61,5-/// (,+0 C%P%9I& 61,41/// (1,10 61,2+/// (,10 61,.+/// (,15 61,5.// (,+%&&I%)C$ 61,4+/ (,+0 61,40/ (,+3 61,40 (,21 61,.. (,43 M%:P"W +,7+/// (,+7 +,20/// (,21 +,04/// (,20 2,40/// (,54 D$M"C 6,15/// (,1+ 61,1./// (,1+ 61,15///(,12 61,17/ (,14 I)T$#D$P 601,+7/// (+2,44 6.4,5-/// (+.,31 6++2,3-/// (23,-4 6++7,54/ (0.,35 I8"M$M 6,1+// (,11 61,1+/ (,110 61,12/// (,1+ 61,12/ (,12 C")ST%)T 6+,.-/// (,07 64,++/// (,53 6+,1-/// (,75 64,70/// (+,03 Wald ;2 2<+5.,0- +<700,.. +<+37,52 2<+1-,+1 p = ,11 ,11 ,11 ,11 )ote> Columns I thou?h I' include information on each of the dependent variables, #o@s include information on each of the independent variables, Statistically si?nificant coefficients are indicated by asterisAs (/ p = ,10B //p = , 1+B ///p = ,11+ , #obust standard errors appear @ithin parentheses belo@ the coefficients,

D"T"J ?"%/ C*T/

This st!42 !ses cross;sectionJ time;series 4ata. The !nit o' anal2sis is the 42a4 2ear. The )asic 4ata set is enerate4 !sin /1&ene 9.:.20:J which inte rates Correlates o' $ar 4ata 3?mall an4 ?in er 19A2J 1962R ?arkees 20005J %ilitariOe4 *nterstate Dis+!tes 3%*Ds5 4ata 3ConesJ BremerJ an4 ?in er 19905J an4 a %*Ds !+4ate 3%aoO 200>5.1. The 4ata set !se4 in this st!42 is lar el2 consistent with <e9eho!se an4 8!ssett 320005 an4 contains 011J:10 42a4 2ears.1> *t sho!l4 )e note4 that this incl!4es all 42a4sJ not P!st +oliticall2 rele9ant ones. This is es+eciall2 im+ortant 'or the +!r+oses o' this st!42J )eca!se the s!)set o' +oliticall2 rele9ant 42a4s wo!l4 re+resent a )iase4 sam+le in which a++roximatel2 A> +ercent o' the 42a4s wo!l4 incl!4e at least one n!clear +ower. "s in <e9eho!se an4 8!ssett 320005J 42a4 2ears are 4rawn 'rom the 166> thro! h 2000 +erio4. $hile n!clear wea+ons 4i4 not exist )e'ore 19.>J the 166>19.. +erio4 is incl!4e4 so that rea4ers can com+are these 'in4in s with +re9io!s st!4ies an4 know that the res!lts 4i''er onl2 )eca!se o' the a44ition o' 9aria)les that meas!re the +resence o' n!clear wea+ons. Tests +er'orme4 on a 4ata set restricte4 to the 19.02000 +erio4 4i4 not noticea)l2 alter the statistical or s!)stanti9e e''ects o' n!clear wea+ons.

Data# N!clear Deterrence &oo4

FE* =ow to rea4 the Chart
/GT 8/"D *T B/FO8/ 1?*N& *T
8a!chha!s 09 I8o)ert De+artment o' <olitical ?cience 1ni9ersit2 o' Cali'orniaJ ?anta Bar)ara /9al!atin the N!clear <eace =2+othesis# " D!antitati9e "++roach Co!rnal o' Con'lict 8esol!tion 2009R >:R 2>6 ori inall2 +!)lishe4 online Fe) >J 2009L IctL This st!42 incl!4es ten in4e+en4ent 9aria)les. "E?%N1K/ is a )inar2 9aria)le that eM!als 1 i' one o' the states in a 42a4 has n!clear wea+ons. ?E%N1K/ is a )inar2 9aria)le that eM!als 1 i' )oth states in a 42a4 ha9e n!clear wea+ons. *n'ormation on states with n!clear wea+ons was 4rawn 'rom &artOke an4 Kroeni 32009J this iss!e5. Fi !re 2 4escri)es the 2ears that states acM!ire4 an4J in some casesJ a)an4one4 n!clear wea+ons. ?ince there is some am)i !it2 in assessments o' what 2ear states acM!ire n!clear wea+onsJ tests were +er'orme4 !sin alternati9e +roli'eration 4ates. Neither the statistical nor s!)stanti9e res!lts were a''ecte4 )2 these alternati9e s+eci'ications. "ll o' the remainin 9aria)les an4 co4in are consistent with <e9eho!se an4 8!ssett 320005J which can )e cons!lte4 'or a more 4etaile4 4isc!ssion o' the 4ata. D*?T"NC/ is a contin!o!s 9aria)le that meas!res the nat!ral lo arithm o' the 4istance )etween ca+itals o' two statesJ or 'or lar e statesJ the 4istance )etween nearest +orts. CONT*& is a )inar2 9aria)le that eM!als 1 i' the two states are conti !o!s. This incl!4es )ein 4irectl2 connecte4 )2 lan4 or in4irectl2 connecte4 )2 less than 1>0 miles across water. Conti !it2 also incl!4es contact with other states thro! h colonial +ossessions. The 4ata set incl!4es three 9aria)les that are inten4e4 to e9al!ate realist concerns. The 9aria)le %"C<O$ eM!als 1 i' one or )oth o' the states in the 42a4 are maPor +owers. "77*"NC/ eM!als 1 i' the two +arties ha9e a 'ormal militar2 alliance or nona ression +act. C"<8"T meas!res relati9e 4istri)!tion o' +ower )etween states. Three in4e+en4ent 9aria)les e9al!ate neoli)eral h2+otheses. To control 'or the e''ects o' re ime t2+eJ D/%OC !ses a scale that ran es 'rom 10 3a!tocrac25 to d10 34emocrac25. /ach stateTs a!tocrac2 score is s!)tracte4 'rom its 4emocrac2 scoreJ an4 the least constraine4 stateTs score is incl!4e4.16 The e''ects o' economic inter4e+en4ence are meas!re4 )2 *NT/8D/<. "ll o' the 4ata !se4 'or the +ost$orl4 $ar ** +erio4 are 'rom &le4itsch 320025. /arlier 4ata are collecte4 thro! h a 9ariet2 o' historical so!rces an4 estimatin +roce4!res 38!ssettJ OnealJ an4 Ber)a!m 200:J :AAR <e9eho!se an4 8!ssett 20005. *&O%/% meas!res share4 mem)ershi+ in inter o9ernmental or aniOations 3<e9eho!se an4 8!ssett 20005.

"FF "ns D!antitati9e <s2cholo 2 Ba4

<?EC=O7O&E F"*7? TO /G<7"*N N1C7/"8 $"8 D1"NT*T"T*V/ O8 NOT

Bli ht 60 ICames &. =ow %i ht <s2cholo 2 Contri)!te to 8e4!cin the 8isk o' N!clear $arW olitical <s2cholo 2J Vol. AJ No. . 3Dec.J 19605J ++. 01A;000 *nternational ?ociet2 o' <olitical <s2cholo 2L IctL *n the +ast se9eral 2earsJ there has )een an em+hatic re9i9al o' interest amon +s2cholo ists an4 others in a++l2in +s2cholo ical insi hts to the +ro)lem o' re4!cin the risk o' warJ es+eciall2 n!clear war. *n the 'ollowin sectionsJ * ha9e s!r9e2e4 some o' the most in'l!ential recent attem+ts to link +s2cholo ical knowle4 e with re4!cin the risk o' n!clear war. %2 concl!sion re ar4in this enter+rise is not !nlike Fre!4Hs in res+onse to /insteinHs inM!ir2# The res!lts so 'ar in4icate that the re9i9al o' /insteinian enth!siasm is !nwarrante4. *n s!mJ the critical concl!sions are these# 1. There has )een little or no in'l!ence on the +olic2; makin +rocessJ at the le9el o' 4ee+J interme4iateJ or +reci+itatin +s2cholo ical ca!ses o' a +otential n!clear war. 2. There is reason to )elie9e that s!ch in'l!ence will contin!e to )e minimal an4 alsoJ in 'actJ that it +ro)a)l2 sho!l4 )e minimalJ when 9iewe4 'rom the +olic2;makerHs +ers+ecti9e. The most com+ellin reason +olic2;makers ha9e 'or i norin +s2chiatrists an4 +s2cholo ists is this# the ass!m+tions an4 mo4!s o+eran4i at each le9el are !to+ian ; in the case o' the K4e+thK +s2cholo ists 3see section 25 )eca!se the2 )elie9e the2 can chan e the mental str!ct!res o' 9irt!all2 all im+ortant worl4 lea4ersJ an4 'or the Kinterme4iateK )eha9ioral scientists 3see section :5 )eca!se the2 )elie9e the2 can con9ince 'orei n +olic2 makers that it is in their )est interest to +ermit the trans'ormation o' n!clear +olic2 into a 9irt!al a++lie4 )eha9ioral science. * )elie9e that each o' these +!rs!its has )een an4 will remain 'r!itless. Th!sJ since * re ar4 in'l!ence on the +olic2 +rocess as the sine M!a non o' s!ccess'!l n!clear risk re4!ctionJ * )elie9e +s2cholo ists are likel2 to remain o!t in the col4J as it wereJ witho!t in'l!enceJ 4es+ite all their oo4 intentions. "s * ar !e in the last two sectionsJ on +reci+itatin +s2cholo ical ca!ses o' a +otential n!clear warJ the time ma2 )e ri ht 'or 9iewin the +otential linka e )etween risk o' n!clear war an4 +s2cholo 2 in a new li ht. The main reM!irement is that +s2cholo ists learn to think in a non;!to+ian wa2 a)o!t the +ro)lem o' n!clear risk re4!ction an4 that the2 there'ore a9oi4 callin 'or con9ersion;like +s2cholo ical re9ol!tions an4 s! estin Ko'' the shel'H sol!tions 'rom their la)oratories an4 clinics. *n the 'inal sectionJ an o!tline is sketche4 o' a +henomenolo ical a++roach to the +reci+itatin +s2cholo ical ca!sesJ an a++roach which ma2 e9ent!all2 2iel4 +s2cholo ical in'ormation more !se'!l to +olic2;makers than ha9e +re9io!s a++roaches 3Bli htJ 196>aJ)R 19605.

"FF "ns D!antitati9e <olic2makin

2"C
D1"NT*F*C"T*ON OF <O7*CE%"K*N& D/C8/"?/? <1B7*C <"8T*C*<"T*ON $*T= T/C=N*C"7 D*?CO18?/ /7*T/? $*77 CO;O<T *T "ND D/?T8OE %"8&*N"7*Q/D &8O1<?
Beck 0A I/.7. Beck %asterHs De ree in /conomic ?ociolo 2 'rom 1ni9 o' Chica oJ B" 'rom <!r4!e. 8ePection o' T2rannical <olitical <owerL IctL Ihtt+#//the;small;r.com/small;r;re+!)licanism;4e'ine4/rePection;o';inherite4;+olitical;+ower/L 2 ?inceJ as citiOensJ we ha9e 4isen a e4 'rom meanin '!l +olitical en a ement thanks to instit!tionaliOationJ )!t also social en a ementJ which has le't !s a societ2 o' warrin extremes with irreconcila)le +artisanshi+. $ith s!ch a 4is+la2 o' irres+onsi)ilit2 'rom the +!)licJ +olitical elites rea4il2 P!sti'2 their a +riori actions since their theories (in'orm )est, an4 the (!ne4!cate4, constit!enc2 (cannot )e tr!ste4., These elite rel2 on theories 4e9elo+e4 within h2+er;scienti'ic social science 4isci+linesJ with little attem+t to em+iricall2 o)ser9e how citiesJ hi hwa2sJ r!ral areasJ street li'eJ health careJ )!sinessesJ an4 'orei n c!lt!res act!all2 work. The2 'ail to M!er2 the 9er2 +!)lic or entities (in the trenches, that will )e e''ecte4 )2 new +olicies. The2 ass!me 4i''erential c!r9es somehow re'lect realit2J as i' h!mans )eha9e like +lanetar2 )o4ies witho!t 'ree willJ 'ore oin em+irical e9i4ence in 'a9or o' mathematical ele ance. %ore tra icall2J this !nitar2 in'at!ation with M!anti'ication in +olic2 makin hol4s se9ere conseM!ences. "s Cane Caco)s wrote on the M!anti'ication o' h!mans an4 their acti9ities# (?tatistical +eo+le are a 'iction 'or man2 reasonsJ one o' which is that the2 are treate4 as i' in'initel2 interchan ea)le. 8eal +eo+le are !niM!eJ the2 in9est 2ears o' their li9es in si ni'icant relationshi+s with other !niM!e +eo+leJ an4 are not interchan ea)le in the least. ?e9ere4 'rom their relationshi+sJ the2 are 4estro2e4 as e''ecti9e social )ein s sometimes 'or a little whileJ some times 'ore9er. 3The Death an4 7i'e o' &reat "merican CitiesJ 1901J cha+ter 05

<8*O8*T*Q*N& D1"NT*F*C"T*ON 1N*D1/7E F"*7? /D1C"T*ON"77E *T *&NO8/? " 7OT OF D"T"J &/T? COO<T/D TO D/7"E %/"N*N&F17 "CT*ONJ "ND T8"D/? OFF $*T= 8/?O18C/? TO$"8D B/TT/8 /D1C"T*ON "BO1T T=/ <7"N
<ielke 99 I8o er ". <ielkeCr.J Daniel ?arewitOJ8a4'or4 B2erl2 Cr.J an4 Dale Camieson /n9ironmental an4 ?ocietal *m+acts &ro!+J National Center 'or "tmos;+heric 8esearchJ <re4iction in the /arth ?ciencesan4 /n9ironmental <olic2 %akin /O.?J T8"N?"CT*ON? VO71%/ 60 N1%B/8 26 C17E 1:.1999 "%/8*C"N &/O<=E?*C"7 1N*ONL IctL <re4iction an4 <olic2 %akin $hile e''orts to +re4ict nat!ral +henomena ha9e )ecome an im+ortant as+ect o' the/ arth sciencesJ the 9al!e o' s!ch e''ortsJ asP !4 e4 es+eciall2 )2 their ca+acit2 to im;+ro9e 4ecision makin an4 achie9e +olic2 oalsJ has )een M!estione4 )2 a n!m)er o'c onstr!cti9e critics. The relationshi+ )e;tween +re4iction an4 +olic2 makin is nots trai ht'orwar4 'or man2 reasons. "mon ther easons is that acc!rate +re4iction o' +he;nomena ma2 not )e necessar2 to res+on4 e';'ecti9el2 to +olitical or socioeconomic+ro)lems create4 )2 the +henomena 3'or ex;am+leJ )etter miti ation o' nat!ral haOar4ss!ch as 'loo4s mi ht 4e+en4 more on re4!c;in 9!lnera)ilities than on )etter +re4icti9ein'ormationR see </e/"e I1999L5. "lsoJ +henomena or +rocesses o' 4irect concern to +olic2 makers ma2 not )e easil2 +re4icta)le on !se'!l timescales 3s!ch aswith earthM!akesR see "shi4a I1990L5. 7ike;wiseJ +re4icti9e research ma2 re'lect 4isci;+line;s+eci'ic scienti'ic +ers+ecti9es that 4onot +ro9i4e KanswersK to +olic2 +ro)lemsJwhich are com+lex mixt!res o' 'acts an4 9al;!esJ an4 which are +ercei9e4 4i''erentl2 )2 4i';'erent +olic2 makers 3'or exam+leJ re ar4in aci4 rainR see =errick an4 Camieson I1990L5. *n a44itionJ necessar2 +olitical action ma2)e 4e'erre4 in antici+ation o' +re4icti9e in'or;mation that is not 'orthcomin in a time'rame com+ati)le with s!ch action. ?imilarl2J policy action may be delayed when scientific uncertainties associated with predictions be#come politically charged 3in the iss!e o' lo)al climate chan eJ 'or exam+leR see8a2ner an4 %ahne I1996L5. /redictive information also may be sub,ectto manipulation and misuse either becausethe limitations and uncertainties associated with predictive models are not readily appar#ent, or because the models are applied in aclimate of political controversy and high economic stakes. This ma2 )e +artic!larl2 +ro);lematic when +re4ictions are !se4 to P!sti'2 o9ernment re !lator2 4ecisionsJ s!ch as in rantin +ermits 'or mines 3see %oran an4%ernitO I199>L5 orin 4e9elo+in shorelines3see <ilke2 an4 Dixon I1990L5. "lsoJ emphasis on predictive sciences moves both financial and intellectual resources away from other types of research that might better help to guide decision making 3'or exam+leJ incre;mental or a4a+ti9e a++roaches to en9iron;mental mana ement that reM!ire monitorin an4 assessment instea4 o' +re4ictionR see 7eeI199:L5. These consi4erations s! est that the !se;'!lness o' scienti'ic +re4iction 'or +olic2 mak;in an4 the resol!tion o' societal +ro)lems4e+en4s on relationshi+s amon se9eral 9ari;a)lesJ s!ch as the timescales !n4er consi4;erationJ the scienti'ic com+lexit2 o' the+henomena )ein +re4icte4J the +oliticalan4 economic context o' the +ro)lemJ an4the a9aila)ilit2 o' alternati9e scienti'ic an4+olitical a++roaches to the +ro)lem. *n li ht o' the likelihoo4 o' com+lex inter;+la2 amon these 9aria)lesJ 4ecision makersan4 scientists wo!l4 )ene'it 'rom criteria thatwo!l4 allow them to )etter P!4 e the +oten;tial 9al!e o' scienti'ic +re4iction an4 +re4ic;ti9e mo4elin 'or 4i''erent t2+es o' +oliticalan4 social +ro)lems relate4 to /arth +roc;esses an4 the en9ironment

"FF 8easona)ilit2

8/"?ON"B*7*TE ;C1?T B/C"1?/ T=/E $*N T=/*8 *NT/8< *? ?7*&=T7E B/TT/8 FO8 D/B"T/ DO/?NHT %/"N EO1 ?=O17D VOT/ FO8 *T B/C"1?/ <8/?/8V*N& " 8/"?ON"B7/ <718"7*TE OF %/T=ODO7O&*/? *? B/TT/8
Nor aar4 69 Irichar4 ). De+artment o' /ner 2 an4 8eso!rces an4 " ric!lt!ral an4 8eso!rce /conomicsJ 8m the case 'or metho4olo ical +l!ralism /colo ical /conomicsJ 1 319695 :A;>AL IctL FirstJ lo ical +ositi9ism is ina++ro+riate )!t necessar2. 7o ical +ositi9ism 4enies that how we think a''ects c!lt!ral an4 ecolo ical s2stems. Clearl2J this is not sim+l2 a minor shortcomin . The we) o' lo)alJ nationalJ an4 local economic an4 ecolo ical +ro)lems are mani'estations o' how we ha9e tho! ht a)o!t economic s2stemsJ nat!ral scienceJ an4 the 3non5 role o' ecolo ical s2stems an4 c!lt!re in the 4e9elo+ment +rocess. ?+ecies an4 c!lt!res ha9e )een 4ri9en to extinction an4 economicall2 9al!a)le ecolo ical +rocesses an4 c!lt!ral traits irretrie9a)l2 lost )eca!se ecolo ical an4 c!lt!ral s2stems are not mechanical s2stems which can )e +!she4 to new eM!ili)ria an4 )ro! ht )ack as 4esire4. Eet lo ical +ositi9ism is necessar2 )eca!se mo4em +eo+le +ercei9e science in terms o' o)Pecti9eJ !ni9ersal tr!ths. To a lar e extent mo4ern societies are or aniOe4 to act on science +resente4 to it 'rom thisJ an4 onl2 thisJ metho4olo ical stance. 1ntil the illo ic o' lo ical +ositi9ism is )etter known thro! ho!t societ2J the !se o' lo ical +ositi9ist ar !ments will )e P!sti'ie4 in certain circ!mstances. =o+e'!ll2J the conscio!s !se o' lo ical +ositi9ist ar !ments will also incor+orate warnin s o' +otential 4an ers. *n an2 caseJ we m!st )e a)le to work with lo ical +ositi9ism while 4e9elo+in more a++ro+riate metho4olo ies. ?econ4J it is clearl2 too earl2 to limit the metho4olo ies !se4 in ecolo ical economics now e9en i' a narrower set mi ht )e a ree4 !+on later. To select a narrow set o' metho4olo ies now wo!l4 eliminateJ or at least re4!ce the access toJ m!ch o' ecolo 2 i9en its m!lti+le metho4olo ies an4J !nless lo ical +ositi9ism is selecte4J nearl2 all o' economics. The e''orts to 4ate at ecolo ical economics in the metho4olo ical intersect o' neoclassical economics an4 +o+!lation )iolo 2J 'or exam+leJ +ro9i4e 9er2 limite4 insi hts 3ClarkJ 19A05. %ost o' the metho4olo ical intersects )etween ecolo 2 an4 economics are sim+l2 too narrow to enerate interestin res!lts. <ress!re to 4e'ine ecolo ical economics )2 narrowin its metho4olo 2 sho!l4 )e resiste4. Thir4J +l!ralism makes sense. /colo ical economics m!st a44ress the com+lex inter+la2 o' lo)al economies an4 local interestsJ so+histicate4 technolo ies an4 h!man 'railtiesJ en9ironmental s2stems an4 social controls on their !seJ an4 limite4 reso!rces. Clearl2 there is not one )estJ let alone all encom+assin J +ers+ecti9e 'or !n4erstan4in an4 mana in +ro)lems o' the com+lexit2 we now 'ace. "r !ments which are a4amentl2 +resente4 initiall2 as ri ht thinkin 3O4!mJ 19A1R %ea4ows et al.J 19A25 are 'reM!entl2 )etter 4e9elo+e4 a 4eca4e later in a +l!ralist 'rame 3=all et al.J 19605. Fo!rthJ +l!ralism +re9ents )rash action. Those who are acc!stome4 to (one ri ht wa2 o' thinkin , will +oint o!t that the +ractice o' metho4olo ical +l!ralism will lea4 to m!lti+le (answers, an4 no clear co!rse o' action. *n 'actJ science onl2 i9es insi hts into com+lex iss!es. *t is eas2 to s!''er the 4el!sion that the insi ht o' a +artic!lar metho4 is the answer when no other metho4s ha9e )een trie4 to +ro9i4e other insi hts. ?in le metho4/answer 4el!sions lea4 to )rash action which are likel2 to s!)seM!entl2 +ro9e to )e mistakes. "lsoJ +eo+le who onl2 think one wa2 are s!sce+ti)le to twiste4J 4eli)eratel2 4istorte4 ar !ments in those areas 'or which the +attern o' thinkin is least a4eM!ate. The m!lti+le insi hts o' m!lti+le metho4s constantl2 remin4 !s o' the com+lexit2 o' social an4 ecolo ical s2stems an4 the 4i''ic!lties o' takin action. Fi'thJ +l!ralism can hel+ s!stain )iolo ical an4 c!lt!ral 4i9ersit2. 1ntil the twentieth cent!r2J the worl4 can )e tho! ht o' as ha9in )een a +atchwork M!ilt o' coe9ol9in c!lt!res an4 ecos2stems. $ithin each +atchJ )iolo ical selection was in'l!ence4 )2 c!lt!ral characteristics incl!4in wa2s o' knowin while the selection o' c!lt!ral traits was in'l!ence4 )2 ecolo ical characteristics. The a4o+tion o' $estern 'orms o' knowin J technolo ical inter9entionJ an4 social or aniOation has re4!ce4 )oth c!lt!ral an4 )iolo ical 4i9ersit2. Eet to a consi4era)le extentJ ecos2stems are still 4i''erent )eca!se the selecti9e +ress!res a++lie4 )2 +eo+le ha9e )een 4i''erent 4!e to 4i''erences in how +eo+le ha9e tho! ht a)o!t nat!re. ?imilarl2J c!lt!ral 4i9ersit2 still exists )eca!se o' 4i9ersit2 in wa2s o' thinkin . Conscio!s metho4olo ical 4i9ersit2 will 'acilitate the ret!rn o' the +atchwork M!ilt as well as coor4inate4 e''ort where nee4e4. ?ixthJ metho4olo ical +l!ralism +romotes +artici+ation an4 4ecentraliOation. "n2 i9en 'ramework is )etter !n4erstoo4 )2J more a++reciate4 )2J or res!lts in answers which are more a49anta eo!s to some +eo+le than others. "n2 'ramework that has )een hi hl2 ela)orate4 to stretch its !se'!lness can onl2 )e !n4erstoo4 )2 a 'ew who are well in'orme4 o' its technical 4etails. The !se o' a sin le 'rameworkJ witho!t mo4i'ication 'or re ional 4i''erencesJ 'acilitates control 'rom a sin le center o' anal2sis. Th!s the !se o' a sin le >: 'ramework 4isin'ranchises or 4isM!ali'ies the maPorit2J 'acilitates the tr2ann2 o' technocratsJ an4 enco!ra es centraliOation. O+enness to m!lti+le 'rames o' anal2sis is a +rereM!isite to 4emocrac2 an4 4ecentraliOation. The case 'or metho4olo ical +l!ralism is not an ar !ment 'or !sin P!st an2 'ramework o' anal2sis. For narrowJ well;4e'ine4 M!estionsJ the most s!ita)le 'ramework is somewhat +re4etermine4. "nal2stsJ howe9erJ re+eate4l2 i nore how the 'ramework with which the2 are acc!stome4 to !sin an4 s!++ose4l2 most 'amiliar contains ass!m+tions which +recl!4e +!rs!it o' the M!estion. *t is inaneJ 'or exam+leJ to ex+lore M!estions o' inter enerational eM!it2 within a neoclassical 'ramework that commits the anal2st to 4isco!ntin the '!t!re )2 the rate o' interest 4etermine4 )2 the c!rrent eneration 3=annonJ 196A5. ?imilarl2J economists ha9e M!estione4 the existenceJ nat!reJ an4 social im+lications o' lon ;r!n reso!rce scarcit2 !sin mo4els which ass!me that +ri9ate reso!rce allocators are alrea42 in'orme4 o' the nat!re o' reso!rce scarcit2 an4 actin in accor4ance

with this in'ormation 3Nor aar4J 19665. %etho4olo ical +l!ralism acknowle4 es the limitsJ an4 hence the a++ro+riatenessJ o' s+eci'ic metho4s to s+eci'ic M!estions. Broa4erJ less well 4e'ine4 M!estions can onl2 )e +!rs!e4 thro! h m!lti+leJ o9erla++in anal2sesJ extensi9e 4isc!ssion )etween 4i9erse ex+erts an4 the +eo+le 4irectl2 a''ecte4J an4 P!4 ment. *' we acce+t that there is not a com+rehensi9e ri ht wa2 o' +re4ictin the '!t!re conseM!ences o' o!r choicesJ we will more likel2 make 4ecisions seM!entiall2 in relati9el2 small incrementsJ )!il4 monitorin an4 learnin into e9er2 +ro ram o' chan eJ an4 )e a4a+ti9e 3=ollin J 19A6R $altersJ 19605. *n s!mmar2J ecolo ical economics will more likel2 e9ol9e into a !se'!l 4isci+line i' it maintains the )rea4th o' the metho4olo ical )ase o' economics an4 ecolo 2 an4 reaches o!t to the metho4olo ies o' other 4isci+lines as well. O!r e''orts will almost certainl2 'ail i' the metho4olo ical )ase is limite4 to the metho4olo ies hel4 in common )etween the 4ominant strain o' economics an4 an2 strain o' ecolo 2. The metho4olo 2 o' neoclassical economics i nores how o!r c!lt!re an4 histor2 a''ect how we know an4 how what we ha9e known a''ects the s2stems we are st!42in . $e 4o not know which theories o' ecolo ical economics will +ro9e )etter whenJ whereJ an4 'or whomJ so we sho!l4 not eliminate an2 at the conce+t!al sta e in too 'ine a metho4olo ical 'ilter. *' we hol4 to the )elie' that knowle4 e is acc!m!latin to one con r!ent !n4erstan4in J we will miss the insi hts +ro9i4e4 )2 incon r!ent wa2s o' knowin . %!lti+le insi hts !ar4 a ainst mistaken action )ase4 on one +ers+ecti9e. 7astl2J i' we hol4 to the )elie' that knowle4 e consists o' !ni9ersal laws with !ni9ersal a++lica)ilit2J we will a++l2 it accor4in l2 an4 4estro2 the 4i9ersit2 in the c!lt!ral an4 ecolo ical s2stems we are tr2in to s!stain.