POLICY ARGUMENTS

Policy Arguments and Decision Making Identify the “problem” to be resolved. Identify the underlying causes of the problem. Identify the goals that need to be reached in

order to solve the problem. Identify (or invent) policies that would

accomplish the goals. Evaluate each policy in terms of its effectiveness

in reaching the goals. Select the ‘best’ policy.

Arguing policies Arguing that there is a problem to be addressed

and resolved. Stating the goals that should be reached in order to

resolve the problem. Stating the policy (its mechanism, etc). Arguing that the implementation of that policy

will accomplish the desired goals

Identifying Needs and Problems Problem Description: Disparity Harm The magnitude of the problem: how serious is

the problem? Duration and trends: How persistent is the

problem? Is it stable, increasing, or declining? The Scope

Problem Causation Knowing the causes of a problem is often the

same as having a solution.

The question of causation is a question of culpability. Who is at fault? What or whom should we blame?

Causes Structural

Attitudinal

Accidental

Finding / Inventing solutions “There are two methods of curing the

mischief… the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.”

Madison in The Federalist No. 10 on the problem of political factions

What are you proposing to do?

Are you addressing causes or symptoms of the problem?

What ‘behaviors’ are to be enacted that are not presently being enacted?

Reviewing existing policies

“Policy is more like an endless game of Monopoly than a sewing machine repair… The action we commonly call “new policies” are really somebody’s next move”

Proposing a policy Explaining the mechanism of the policy Is the policy feasible and workable? Is the policy enforceable? Cost-benefit analysis Does the policy have unintended effects? The question of Should versus Would

Mechanism / Feasibility How it is going to work?

Is the solution available and acceptable?

Financing How are you planning to pay for it? Is the solution affordable? Who will benefit from the policy? Who will

pay the costs?

Enforcement What means are used to ensure compliance?

Expected results

Does the policy eliminate the causes (or only symptoms) of the problem?

Does the policy have unintended effects? Is the policy workable in the long run?

Propositions of Fact

Why People Believe Weird Things

By Michael Shermer

Weird beliefs (Harris Poll 2007) 51% of the public believe in ghosts 30% believe in astrology 27% believe in reincarnation - that they were

once another person 35% believe in faith healing and

communication with the dead

more from Harris Poll 53% of American adults were unaware that the

last dinosaur died before the first human arose; Only 50% of adults knew that the Earth orbits

the sun and takes a year to do it 55% of Americans don’t know that the first

homo sapiens are dated about 100,000-200,000 years ago.

From “National Geographic”

A total of 21 percent of voters believe aliens do exist and believe the U.S. government covered up a UFO crash near Roswell, New Mexico, in 1947.

REALITY CHECK: Although it is possible that aliens exist, there is no evidence of it now and no government cover up.

From “National Geographic” Some 20 percent believe childhood vaccines are

linked to autism. These voters believe that childhood vaccines could increase the risk of developing autism.

Reality Check: A recent government study confirmed what many scientists have been saying all along: There is no connection between the number of vaccines a child receives and his or her risk of developing autism.

From “National Geographic” The poll revealed that 14 percent believe that

Bigfoot is real. Reality Check: Despite several attempts to prove

Bigfoot exists, no one has presented evidence that has withstood scientific scrutiny. Indeed, many such "proofs" have turned out to be outright hoaxes.

From “National Geographic” Some 9 percent believe the government adds

fluoride to drinking water for "sinister" purposes.

Reality Check: The latest evidence from a 2013 study in the Journal of Dental Research found that fluoride in drinking water prevents tooth decay in adults regardless of age, whether or not they drank fluoridated water as children.

Other Myths and Conspiracy Theories:

Pharmaceutical companies suppress known cancer cures

It simply doesn’t make sense... Finding a highly effective therapy would guarantee huge worldwide sales.

Pharma companies are not stupid, and they are quick to jump on promising avenues for effective therapies.

There are always ways to repackage and patent molecules. Also, universities and independent researchers work on

drug development without a profit motive.

Other Myths: Superfoods prevent cancer Blueberries, beetroot, broccoli, garlic, green tea… the list

goes on. Despite thousands of websites claiming otherwise, there’s no such thing as a ‘superfood’.

It’s a marketing term used to sell products and has no scientific basis

That’s not to say you shouldn’t think about what you eat. Some foods are clearly healthier than others. Stocking up on fruits and veg is a great idea, and eating a range of different veg is helpful too, but the specific vegetables you choose doesn’t really matter.

Other Myths: 3,000-mile oil changes Most companies recommend oil changes every 7,500 to

10,000 miles for 2008 and newer model-year vehicles.

These guidelines are coming from companies that have a vested interest in keeping your car running trouble-free: If you're happy with the car or truck, you're more likely to buy another one. And a well-maintained car means the manufacturer has to pay out less in warranty claims.

Other Myths: Toyota Prius (and other hybrids) battery

“You have to replace the battery in Toyota Prius Hybrid around year 5, and it will cost at least 5-7 thousand dollars".

The HV battery seems to last about 300,000 miles and costs about $2,000 for parts and labor

Every five years you replace the traditional small 12V battery for about $100.

Americans aged 18 to 24 30% cannot find Iraq on a map 50% cannot identify New York state on a map 50% didn’t know when the Civil War was

fought 25% thought that Christopher Columbus sailed

to the New World sometime after 1750, not in 1492

Propositions of fact are verifiable

a proposition is verifiable if its truth could be established.

a proposition can be considered verifiable if it is possible to show that the proposition is probable

Stock issues in building a case for a proposition of fact:

The evidence and reasoning: establishing the truth or probability of a proposition of fact

Methods: Observation, Experiment, Testimony.

Observable facts and Theoretical constructs. Observable facts: Direct observations

and Indirect observations (circumstantial evidence)

Theoretical constructs “are used to explain the raw data we observe:” are verified by observations and experiments

Formal (scientific) research

Research is an objective, systematic, empirical, and cumulative process.

Objective Systematic Empirical Cumulative

Research question A narrow question that seeks to describe/explain a

relationship between two variables without predicting that the relationship exists.

For example: Does nonverbal immediacy affect learning in the

classroom? And if so—how?

Hypothesis The basic statement that is tested in research.

Typically a hypothesis states a relationship between two variables.

It makes a prediction about that relationship.

For example: Nonverbal immediacy is conducive to learning in

the classroom

Variables in hypotheses / questions

Hypotheses or questions seek to describe/explain/predict a relationship between two phenomena, events, types of behavior, etc.

Such phenomena etc. are known as variables

Relationship between variables Independent variable: the stimulus that is

affecting other variables. Dependent variable: the variable that is

influenced or affected by independent variable

Nonverbal immediacy → Learning Disclosure → Intimacy

Devising the best method

to seek answers to research questions or to test hypotheses

Pre-testing / post-testing

Experimental and control group

Preexperimental and experimental designs

Pre-experimental:

One shot case study One group pretest-posttest

Experimental:

Pretest Posttest Control Group (+random selection)

Pre-experimental Designs

One shot Case Study

X O

X = independent variable O = the outcome after applying X

Pre-experimental Designs

One Group Pretest-Posttest Design

O X O

1st ‘O’ (the state of affairs before applying independent variable X

2nd ‘O’ (the state of affairs after applying X)

Experimental Designs

Pretest-Posttest Control Group

R O X O R O O

R = random selection of the study’s subjects (e.g., students)

Propositions of value Stating the claim/proposition. Establishing the criteria for the evaluative

component. Applying the criteria. Verifying whether the applied criteria correspond

to facts.

Claim: FDR was one of the greatest presidents in the U.S. history.

Criteria for greatness: Great presidents (a) have a vision, (b) are realists, (c) can build a national consensus, etc.

Applying the criteria to FDR: Is it true that FDR had a vision, was a realist, built a national consensus, etc.?

Verification: Can it be proven that FDR had a vision?