Kritik-Answers---Samford

Kritik-Answers---Samford - Samford Debate Institute 2010...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Samford Debate Institute 2010 Strike Force Alpha K Answers ***Frontlines*** Predictions Frontline (1/3) Alternative doesn’t solve: Rejection of prediction dooms all policymaking Chernoff 2005 (Fred, Prof. of Political Science at Colgate The Power Of International Theory , p. 215) Various IR theorists have also argued against prediction . For example, Donald Puchala contends that IR theory ‘does not, because it cannot in the absence of laws…invite us to deduce, and it does not permit us to predict’ (Puchala 1991: 79). Interpetivist and reflectivist IR theorists like Ashley (1986), Onuf (1989), Walker (1993) and others, following the lead of critical theorists and prediction-sceptic philosophers of social science, argue that IR theory (discussed in Chapter 3) is able to facilitate an interpretive understanding of events and deny that IR theory is capable of prediction or scientific-style explanation. Even though many of these authors hope that IR theory can lead to ‘human emancipation’, their meta-theory undercuts its ability to do so. This trend in the theoretical literature in IR severs the link between IR theory and any significant ability to aid policy- makers to bring about emancipation or any other foreign policy goal. If they do not leave room for rationally grounded expectations about the future, that is, scientific-style prediction, then it will be impossible to formulate policies that can be expected to achieve various aims, including the emancipation of oppressed groups. Without the ability to say that a given action option has a higher probability than any of the other options of achieving the objective, e.g., a greater degree of emancipation of the target group, these theorists cannot recommend courses of action to achieve their desired goals. The loss of this essential capability has been largely overlooked by constructivsts and reflectivists in the IR literature. All policy decisions are attempts to influence or bring about some future state of affairs. Policy-making requires some beliefs about the future , whether they are called ‘expectations’, ‘predictions’, ‘forecasts’ or ‘prognostications’. The next step in the argument is to show how such beliefs can be justified. Perm: Do the plan while creating emergencies plans in case of an incorrect prediction Predictions can still work even if we acknowledge that it is impossible to know the future 100% of the time. Kurasawa 2004 (Fuyuki, Assistant Professor of Sociology at York University. “Cautionary tales: The global culture of prevention and the work of foresight”. Constellations , 11:4, p. 458-459)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Samford Debate Institute 2010 Strike Force Alpha When engaging in the labor of preventive foresight, the first obstacle that one is likely to encounter from some intellectual circles is a deep-seated skepticism about the very value of the exercise . A radically postmodern line of thinking, for instance, would lead us to believe that it is pointless, perhaps even harmful, to strive for farsightedness in light of the aforementioned crisis of conventional paradigms of historical analysis. If, contra teleological models, history has no intrinsic meaning, direction,
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at Berkeley.

Page1 / 57

Kritik-Answers---Samford - Samford Debate Institute 2010...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online