Political scientists often ask themselves what might have been
if history had unfolded differently: if Stalin had been ousted as
General Party Secretary or if the United States had not dropped the
bomb on Japan. Although scholars sometimes scoff at applying
hypothetical reasoning to world politics, the contributors to this
volume--including James Fearon, Richard Lebow, Margaret Levi, Bruce
Russett, and Barry Weingast--find such counterfactual conjectures
not only useful, but necessary for drawing causal inferences from
historical data. Given the importance of counterfactuals, it is
perhaps surprising that we lack standards for evaluating them. To
fill this gap, Philip Tetlock and Aaron Belkin propose a set of
criteria for distinguishing plausible from implausible
counterfactual conjectures across a wide range of applications.
The contributors to this volume make use of these and other
criteria to evaluate counterfactuals that emerge in diverse
methodological contexts including comparative case studies, game
theory, and statistical analysis. Taken together, these essays go a
long way toward establishing a more nuanced and rigorous framework
for assessing counterfactual arguments about world politics in
particular and about the social sciences more broadly.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!