Re: It's a Wonderful Lie

[Kenneth Broda-Bahm <broda@midget.towson.edu>]

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996 ross12@MARSHALL.EDU wrote:
> 
> Ken's analysis seems to suggest that a Ceteris Paribus approach should be 
> considered the normal mode of comparison until it is proven that actins 
> are actually excluded that otherwise would be taken, and that then an 
> opportunity cost model should (or could) be employed. 

No -- if the action that is excluded is something that _would_ otherwise 
be taken, then it is part of the ceteris paribus approach:  In comparison 
to the plan, we would look at the world as it otherwise _would_ be if the 
plan action were not taken.  Thus, excluded actions that _would_ 
otherwise occur are simply disadvantages (e.g., you stop Clintons 
election).  The opportunity cost view that Mike Champions in contrast 
says that you look not only at the world as it otherwise _would_ be, but 
the world as it otherwise _could_ be.  Big difference.  The latter would 
include competitive counterplans, the former would restrict negs advocacy 
to the status quo -- a dynamic status quo, that is, including actions 
that would happen if the plan were foregone, but not considering actions 
that would not happen but could happen.  

That sounds muddled, example.  Lets say aff is requireing a dramatic new 
plan mandating new levels of car safety.  If this plan is not taken, it 
is quite likely that the policy-makers would go ahead and modify airbag 
standards anyway.  So, under a ceteris paribus view, we would compare the 
dramatic new plan versus what otherwise would happen: the revised airbag 
rule.   Alternately, in an opportunity cost view we could compare the 
dramatic new proposal to an even more dramatic proposal:  banning cars, 
something that we _could_ do, but certainly _would not_ do in the absence 
of the plan.  Ceteris paribus demands that the absence of the plan be 
necessary and sufficient to produce the alternative, while opportunity 
costs simply demands that it be necessary (to understand the difference, 
oxygen is necessary for fire, but not sufficient).

 Another advantage to ceteris paribus: it requires a more complete causal test.

That is at least my understanding of the difference between what Mike and 
I are advocating.

--Ken
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Asst. Prof., Director of Debate
Towson State University, Towson MD, USA, 21204-7097, 410-830-2888
Broda@Midget.Towson.Edu
------------------------------------------------------------------

---

References:

• Re: It's a Wonderful Lie
• From: ross12@MARSHALL.EDU

---

• Prev by Date: looking for greg achten
• Next by Date: ENTRIES/USC ALAN NICHOLS INVITATIONAL
• Prev by thread: Re: It's a Wonderful Lie
• Next by thread: looking for greg achten
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page