On scenarios, counterfactuals and foreign policy planning

Henri Vogt (University of Turku), Aki Petteri Lehtinen (University of Helsinki)

”On scenarios, counterfactuals and foreign policy planning”

Discussed by

Henri Vogt (Professor of Political Science, University of Turku)

Veera Mitzner (Postdoctoral Researcher in Political and Economic Studies, University of Helsinki)

Moderated by Aki Lehtinen (University Researcher, University of Helsinki)

Time: Monday 13 October, 16-18 (New time!)

Place: Metsätalo/Forest Building, Unioninkatu 40, room 6, 3rd floor

http://www.helsinki.fi/teknos/opetustilat/keskusta/u40/ls6.htm 

AID is the forum for interdisciplinary conversation coordinated by the Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences, University of Helsinki. For the very idea and the programme, check http://www.helsinki.fi/tint/aid.htm

For further information, please contact Pekka Mäkelä, [email protected] 

TOPIC of the session:

‘If kangaroos had no tails they would topple over’ expresses a counterfactual. It prompts us to consider an alternative world in which some specified characteristic is different from what we know about the real world. Counterfactual reasoning may be helpful in figuring out causal relationships by allowing us to conceptually single out what depends on what. On the other hand, counterfactuals are somewhat enigmatic from the point of view of truth: why does postulating a counterfactual tell us anything about the real world? The different disciplines use counterfactuals in different ways. For example, historians may consider whether the WW1 would have broken out had the archduke Ferdinand not been assassinated, economists may study whether education might be beneficial as a signalling device even if we were to disregard whatever students actually learn. However, in some fields such as futures studies counterfactual reasoning might also be used to articulate value judgments more clearly; what would we really want to do if we assumed away some constraints? This debate brings together scholars from international relations and political history to discuss the pros and cons of counterfactuals in their fields.

The QUESTIONS the debate will address include the following: 

What are counterfactuals? What kinds of counterfactuals are used in political science and in the study of international politics? 

What is the difference between past-oriented and future-oriented counterfactuals? 
- Is there a different purpose? 
- What kind of evidence is needed to evaluate past-oriented and future-oriented counterfactuals? 

What are the benefits of future-oriented counterfactuals? 
- For scholars? 
- For policy-making? 
- Do policy-makers and scholars have differing or even conflicting interest when it comes to formulating counterfactuals and evaluating them? 

What kind of roles do different theoretical backgrounds or even disciplinary backgrounds play in the evaluation of the same counterfactual scenario? 

What is the relationship between causal reasoning and counterfactual reasoning? 

Is counterfactual reasoning a methodological tool that is or should be shared by various social scientific disciplines? Is it also a tool that should be shared by policy-makers and social scientist when social science is used as a basis for policy-making?