week 7 CRITICAL THINKING, PLURALIST IR, AND LOOKING AHEAD Flashcards
what is Jackson’s chapter about?
argues for embracing methodological pluralism in International Relations (IR) to foster diverse ways of producing knowledge:
critiques the tendency of some methodologies, particularly neopositivism, to claim exclusive scientific legitimacy
+ advocates for recognizing the validity of multiple methodologies grounded in different philosophical ontologies.
-Science as Pluralistic: should not be reduced to a singular definition or method. It is systematically focused on producing “worldly knowledge” while remaining public and collaborative (Different methodologies should coexist as equally valid approaches)
-Critique of Methodological Monocultures: Dominant methodologies often marginalize alternative approaches by labeling them as unscientific.
-Philosophical Ontology and Commitments:
Each methodology reflects distinct philosophical commitments regarding the relationship between the knower and the known, as well as the nature of knowledge itself. These differences are foundational
-Challenges and Opportunities of Pluralism:
Pluralism requires scholars to explicitly articulate their methodological and philosophical assumptions
what is academic freedom? (who’s vision?)
Humboldt’s Vision:
-Advocated for the integration of teaching and research in universities.
-Introduced the principles of:
Lehrfreiheit: Freedom for professors to teach without interference.
Lernfreiheit: Freedom for students to learn and explore diverse ideas.
-Emphasized independence from Church, State, and private commercial interests to ensure genuine inquiry.
what are the Principles of Free Inquiry
Inspired by who?
Poincaré, who argued:
Submission to external influences undermines the integrity of knowledge so Thought must remain free from:
Dogma,
political parties,
passions, and
preconceived ideas.
.
what are the challenges of academic freedom?
-Funding (donnation en fr) Dependency: Governments and businesses increasingly prioritize applied sciences over basic research.
Humanities and critical social sciences suffer the most.
-Endowed (=donnateurs en fr) Chairs: Wealthy donors sometimes impose ideological restrictions on what can be taught or researched.
EX case study: 1915 New York Times criticized academic freedom claims, implying donors have the right to dictate the terms of their contributions.
Case Studies Illustrating Academic Freedom at Risk
a. University of Chicago’s Pearson Institute
A case where financial endowments influenced the academic focus
b. China Quarterly Controversy:
The Chinese government pressured Cambridge University Press to remove 300 articles critical of the PRC.
c. Critical Race Theory (CRT) Bans in the US:
CRT examines systemic racism in laws and institutions; Far-right activists and Republican-led states passed laws banning CRT
d. Catholic Universities and the Vatican:
Catholic University of Leuven/Louvain: Faced Vatican opposition over stem cell research.
what is the broader implications from the questions 3, 4 and 5 (accademic freedom)?
-Academic freedom is essential for critical inquiry and societal reflection
-pressures from authoritarian states, commercial interests, political ideologies, and religious doctrines threaten this independence.
SO: Universities must balance their funding and affiliations with their commitment to free inquiry and societal critique
what is critical thinking?
objective evaluation (analyzing, evaluating, and criticising information) and rational reasoning to draw ccl based on evidence and logic.
Key activities:
-Assess the strength of an author’s argument by evaluating evidence and reasoning.
-Differentiate between critique (objective evaluation) and criticism (negative judgment).
-A critique can praise strong arguments or highlight weaknesses in logic or evidence.
why is it important to evaluate?
-Distinguishing knowledge claims: Claims must be justified
-Calling out misinformation: (“call bullshit” as per Bergstrom & West): we need to challenge misleading or false info.
-Recognizing cognitive biases
-Overcoming biases
what are the different bias?
. Confirmation bias: Seeking information that supports pre-existing beliefs.
. Belief perseverance: Clinging to beliefs despite contradictory evidence, leading to conspiracies.
. Prejudices: obstruct objective evaluation.
how can we overcome bias?
-Seek alternative perspectives and evaluate them.
-Test beliefs against empirical data, not belief (to avoid confirmation bias).
-Question plausibility of emotional influences.
-Engage in open, rational debates.
-Adopt a scientific attitude: Be willing to abandon prior beliefs if evidence contradicts them.
-Ensure entities compared are directly comparable.
-Question overly optimistic or pessimistic claims.
what is an argument and how to identify one?
Core of critical thinking: Arguments
-An argument: A claim (main point or conclusion) + A justification (supporting evidence or reasons) + A logical link connecting the justification to the claim.
-Identify the argument in a paper by asking:
What is the author’s point?
What are they trying to convince you of?
Complex arguments often include supporting premises requiring additional evidence.
what are the challenges to logical thinking?
Common errors in reasoning that undermine arguments
-Appeal to authority: Accepting a claim based solely on the authority of the speaker.
-Appeal to popular belief: Assuming a claim is true because many people believe it.
-Slippery slope fallacy: Arguing that one action will inevitably lead to severe consequences.
-Ad hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.
-Straw man: Misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to refute it easily.
-False dilemma: Presenting only two options when more exist.
-Circular reasoning: Using the conclusion as part of the argument’s premise.
what is rationality?
Rationality depends on assumptions, which may differ across contexts or cultures -> can lead to misjudgments
Example: NATO’s misjudgment of Soviet ammunition stockpiles due to assuming similar safety protocols.
Facts Can Support Contradictory Arguments, what lesson can we learn from this?
-The wrong question: Asking who is right or wrong oversimplifies the issue.
-Understand the “other side”: Investigate why others interpret facts differently and what assumptions
-Explore alternative interpretations: Be open to perspectives that challenge your assumptions, ensuring a more nuanced and complete understanding.
what can we know in history/ IR? and what are the challenges in IR?
-Limited sources:
Historical and IR knowledge often relies on small samples from vast, incomplete, or destroyed records (Prehistory offers only fragmentary evidence)
-Extrapolation and transparency:
From limited data, scholars make educated guesses
-Arguments must be clear and transparent, outlining assumptions and reasoning.
-Challenges in IR:
. Information biases (personal or systemic).
. Secrecy in diplomacy and intelligence.
. Reliance on potentially biased sources.
what are the key aspects of producing knoweldge in IR?
-Pluralist approach: multiple ontologies, epistemologies, and methodological choices.
-Scientific rigor: systematic, clear methodologies (Jackson= without clear methodology, meaningful scientific debate is impossible)
-Open to public scientific criticism to identify weaknesses and improve arguments.
-Rooted in facts accessible through systematic methods rather than revelation or intuition.
-Built on transparent argumentation linking evidence and conclusions.
what are Jackson/ Patrick’s Insights on Science and Theology (similarities and differences)
➡ Similarities: Both science and theology exhibit methodological and doctrinal diversity.
➡ Differences: Science focuses on the empirical world, while theology involves creed and dogma.
what are the Three Components of Scientific Knowledge Claims:
- Systematic relation to presuppositions: Knowledge claims must align with their
substantive and methodological premises. - Public criticism: Claims must invite scrutiny to improve knowledge.
- Worldly knowledge: Knowledge must concern observable facts, not abstract ethics or mysticism.
➡ Science emerges as inherently pluralistic, rejecting a singular basis for knowledge
production.
what is Pluralism in Science according to Patrick/ Jackson:
● Rejects a single philosophical point of origin.
● Recognizes diversity in knowledge production as a strength
what are the main Scientific Methodologies according to Patrick:
● Neopositivism: Hypothesis testing with a focus on empirical data.
● Critical Realism: Explores deep structures beyond observable phenomena.
● Analytics: explanations limited to observable phenomena.
● Reflexivity: Examines the researcher’s social conditions and biases.
Constructivism’s Role:
● Highlights the social construction of knowledge and norms.
● Lack of methodological consensus makes constructivist research challenging.
how to adress methodological diversity? (the 2 challenges of methodological diversity)
➡ Evaluating Methodologies:
● Methodologies are philosophically distinct, making direct comparison difficult.
➡ Challenges in Synthesis:
● Efforts to synthesize methodologies often impose one framework over others.
● Validity must be evaluated within the standards of the chosen methodology.
what is chap 10 of “calling bullshit” (Bergstrom and West)
importance of actively challenging misinformation in everyday situations. The authors provide strategies for effectively confronting falsehoods, such as:
-Assessing the Claim: Critically evaluate the information presented, considering its source, context, and plausibility.
-Gathering Evidence: Collect credible data and references to support your position when disputing a claim.
-Communicating Effectively: Engage in respectful dialogue, focusing on clarity and avoiding confrontational language to foster constructive discussions.
what is chap 11 of “calling bullshit” and from who?
Bergstrom and West: practicing bullshit detection: practical exercises to hone one’s skills in detecting and refuting misinformation:
-Analyzing Real-World Examples: Regularly examine news articles, advertisements, and social media posts to identify potential misinformation.
-Applying Critical Thinking Frameworks: Utilize structured approaches, such as the CRAAP test (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose), to systematically evaluate information.
-Engaging in Discussions: Participate in conversations that challenge your perspectives, allowing you to practice articulating your reasoning and considering alternative viewpoints
