Evidence, inference and policy advocacy in social science discourse

Political realism and common sense suggest that in politics (and political
analysis) "one should distinguish between truth and opinion -- between what
is true objectively and rationally, supported by EVIDENCE, and illuminated
by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment, separated from the facts
as they are and informed by prejudice and wishful thinking. We can learn
the character of a foreign policy only through the examination of the
political ACTS PERFORMED and of the foreseeable CONSEQUENCES of these acts.
>From these (foreseeable) consequences of the political ACTS PERFORMED we
can infer what the actors' objectives have been" (Hans Morgenthau).

Increasingly (and alarmingly) since the end of the Cold War, too much
"knowledge" in our discipline has been gained from "secondary sources":
media generated and/or "media-as-a-conduit"-provided pictures, "reports,"
and articles based on "leaks" from "unidentified sources." Similarly,
"knowledge" has been gained from "advocacy journalism" based on the "field
reports" from conflict stakeholders: past, current, or prospective (great
powers') clients and proxies. Also, "knowledge" has been advanced by 
government briefings, statements, and "arguments" provided by "active duty"
bureaucrats, policy makers, and academics who are frequently "former staff
members of an Administration or Ministry." DANGEROUSLY (both for theory and
policy) too little attention has been paid to (a) frequently committed
three types of errors and (b) fallacies, and the policy advocacy derived
from them. 

Regarding Balkans, the three types of errors are:

(Type I) Rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true 

- A sovereign, or
by-the-Rambouillet-'Agreement'-soon-to-be-NATO-'protected' 'sovereign'
'Kosovo' run by 'Kosovars' is a supplemental Albanian state -- an addendum
to the existing Albania; 

- The wars over Yugoslavia's secession and succession are the wars against
the Serb state in the Balkans; 

- Great powers ('NATO') have supported ETHNIC (Albanian) formula for
partition in and/or secession from Serbia (Kosovo, 1998/99), while the same
great powers ('NATO') have rejected the ETHNIC (Serb and Croat) formula for
partition in and/or secession from Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992-1999), and
ETHNIC (Serb) formula for partition in and/or secession from Croatia
(1991-1995/96)

- America is at war with the most Americanized nation in the Balkans.


(Type II) Accepting the null hypothesis when it is false 

- 'Kosovo' has nothing to do with (a) dissolution of SFR Yugoslavia and the
(b) end of the Cold War;

- The wars over Yugoslavia's secession and succession are the wars for
everyone else's but Serbs' security;

- Tito's communist 'democracy' had reflected political, inter-ethnic, and
inter-religious harmony and prosperity" in former Yugoslavia;


(Type III) The formulation of the wrong substantive or formal
representation of a problem when one should formulated the right one 

- The Balkan problems are primarily problems of "integration", not the ones
of separation (insecurity);

- Great power competition and hegemonic leadership in the region has 
nothing to do with the conflict; 

- The conflict is primarily a humanitarian disaster caused by
Milosevic-generated Serb 'nationalism', chauvinism, and intolerance". 


Regarding Balkan, five common fallacies are:

(I) Fallacies that result from missing grounds 

- Serbia-Montenegro/Yugoslavia has not been a democracy

- Albania has been a democracy


(II) Fallacies that result from irrelevant grounds 

- External actors intervene in internal conflicts to prevent human-rights
violations and alleviate suffering of the populace

(III) Fallacies that result from defective grounds 

- Milosevic invaded (a) Slovenia, (b) Croatia, (c) Bosnia-Herzegovina, and
(d) Kosovo


(IV) Fallacies that result from unwarranted assumptions 

- One compelled Serbs of Krajina and Serbs of Bosnia-Herzegovina to do "A";
 likewise, one can compel 'Milosevic' to do "B."


(V) Fallacies that result from (deliberate) ambiguities in our arguments 

- What one misconceives to be moral, does not tend to vary with one's
interests.


Checklist of questions to ask when we suspect a fallacy is present:

(1) Are grounds really advanced in support of the claim? 
(2) Are the grounds advanced in support of the claim directly relevant to
the substance of the claim?
(3) Do the grounds advanced present enough evidence to justify the
assertion in question or do you need more?
(4) Are the presumptions upon which the argument rests justifiable?
(5) Are there any ambiguous elements in the argument?[1]

[1] The explanation of fallacies, for example, is eloquently provided in
"An Introduction to Reasoning" by S. Toulmin, R. Rieke, and A. Janik (New
York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1978). A good source for case study
evidence and inference, and "triangulation" as a way to eliminate rival
hypotheses can be found in Donald Campbell, "Degrees of freedom and the
case study", Comparative Political Studies, vol. 13, 1975.

Slobodan Pesic

=====================================
Slobodan Pesic
http://www.pitt.edu/~pesic/slobodan.html 
=====================================