Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T07:15:36.370Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Poking Counterfactual Holes in Covering Laws: Cognitive Styles and Historical Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2017

Philip E. Tetlock  and
Richard Ned Lebow
Philip E. Tetlock
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Richard Ned Lebow
Affiliation:
The Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report a series of studies of historical reasoning among professional observers of world politics. The correlational studies demonstrate that experts with strong theoretical commitments to a covering law and cognitive-stylistic preferences for explanatory closure are more likely to reject close-call Counterfactual that imply that “already explained” historical outcomes could easily have taken radically different forms. The experimental studies suggest that counterfactual reasoning is not totally theory-driven: Many experts are capable of surprising themselves when encouraged to imagine the implications of particular what-if scenarios. Yet, there is a downside to openness to historical contingency. The more effort experts allocate to exploring counterfactual worlds, the greater is the risk that they will assign too much subjective probability to too many scenarios. We close by defining good judgment as a reflective-equilibrium process of balancing the conflicting causal intuitions primed by complementary factual and counterfactual posings of historical questions.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 95 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 829 - 843
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Berlin, Isaiah. 1997. “The Hedgehog and the Fox.” In The Proper Study of Mankind, ed. Berlin, Isaiah. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Pp. 436-98.Google Scholar
Carr, E. H. 1961. What Is History? London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Dray, William H. 1989. On History and Philosophers of History. Leiden, NY: Brill.Google Scholar
Fearon, James. 1991. “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science.” World Politics 43 (April): 474-84.Google Scholar
Fogel, Robert. 1964. Railroads and American Economic Growth: Essays in Econometric History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Goldstone, Jack. N.d.. “Europe's Peculiar Path: The Unlikely Transition to Modernity.” Unmaking the West: Alternative Histories of Counterfactual Worlds, ed. Tetlock, Philip E., Lebow, Richard Ned, and Parker, Geoffrey. New York: Columbia University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1995. Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History. New York: Harmony Books.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Scott, and Hastie, Reid. 1990. “Hindsight: Biased Judgement of Past Events after the Outcomes Are Known.” Psychological Bulletin 107 (21): 311-27.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1965. Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Miller, Dale. 1986. “Norm Theory: Comparing Reality to Its Alternatives.” Psychological Review 93 (April): 136-53.Google Scholar
Koehler, Derek. 1991. “Explanation, Imagination, and Confidence in Judgment.” Psychological Bulletin 110 (3): 499–519.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, Arie W., and Webster, Donna M.. 1996. “Motivated Closing of the Mind: ‘Seizing’ and ‘Freezing.’” Psychological Review 103 (2): 263-8.Google Scholar
Landes, David S. 1998. The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2001. “Contingency, Catalysts and International System Change.” Political Science Quarterly 115 (Winter): 591–616.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lustick, Ian S. 1996. “History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias.” American Political Science Review 90 (September): 605-18.Google Scholar
McCloskey, Donald N. 1991. “History, Differential Equations, and the Problem of Narration.” History & Theory 36 (3): 37–62.Google Scholar
McNeill, William H. 1982. Pursuit of Power: Technology, Armed Force, and Society since A.D. 1000. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mokyr, Joel. N.d. “King Kong and Cold Fusion.” In Unmaking the West: Counterfactual Explorations of Alternative Worlds, ed. Tetlock, Philip E., Lebow, Richard Ned, and Parker, Geoffrey. New York: Columbia University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard E., and May, Ernest R.. 1986. Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision-Makers. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Novick, Peter. 1988. That Noble Dream: The Objectivity Question and the American Historical Profession. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sagan, Scott, and Waltz, Kenneth. 1995. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Suedfeld, Peter, and Tetlock, Philip E.. 2001. “Cognitive Styles.” In Blackwell International Handbook of Social Psychology: Intra-Individual Processes, vol 1, ed. Tesser, Abraham and Schwartz, Norbert. London: Blackwell. Pp. 282–304.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. 1998. “Close-Call Counterfactuals and Belief System Defenses: I Was Not Almost Wrong but I Was Almost Right.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (2): 230-42.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. 1999. “Theory-Driven Reasoning about Possible Pasts and Probable Futures: Are We Prisoners of Our Preconceptions?” American Journal of Political Science 43 (April): 335-66.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. N.d. “The Logic and Psycho-Logic of Counterfactual Thought Experiments in the Rise-of-the-West Debate.” In Unmaking the West: Counterfactual Explorations of Alternative Worlds, ed. Tetlock, Philip E., Lebow, Richard Ned, and Parker, Geoffrey. New York: Columbia University Press. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E., and Belkin, Aaron. 1996. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Fox, Craig. 1995. “Weighting Risk and Uncertainty.” Psychological Review 102 (2): 269-83.Google Scholar
Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel. 1983. “Extensional versus Intuitive Reason: The Conjunction Fallacy as Probability Judgment.” Psychological Review 90 (2): 292–315.Google Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1997. “The Realist Paradigm and Degenerative versus Progressive Research Programs: An Appraisal of Neotraditional Research on Waltz's Balancing Proposition.” American Political Science Review 91 (December): 899–913.Google Scholar