Skip to content
February 10, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

Answering The Predictions/Expert Predictions Critique

Those authors often say that particular types of predictions are challenging or bad……not necessarily we’re worse off when we make predictions.

You can read a number of authors in the behaviour economics field which make arguments about the future.

Make distinctions about the specificity or concreteness of your claims than that of the argument. Evidence thats not so much prediction, but just true. A good example of this would be landmines or a solvency mechanism that has empirical solvency. Our data, our warrants beat yours.

Predictions good, Experts good, and Scenario-planning good. (is one of these Kirasawa or something like that)

Notice, the alternatives on these arguments I think are going to be pretty terrible. Plus, as is often the case–you aren’t saying one expert says this–you’re saying a group of people say this. Theoretically those views check each other.

I have no clue how “engage the political/cede the political” answers this argument, except at the level of framework.

* I believe there are more posts on Learn Policy Debate which cover this issue, probably with evidence. But do spend time reflecting on some of the above ways to make arguments to answer this critique.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: