Finding shared laws: Ladders

1. Finding shared laws: Ladders Philosophy 152 Philosophy of Social Science Week 10 Winter 2011

2. Recall Theory Claim 2.1: The facts relevant for predicting ‘T will contribute positively to the production of O in S’ include There is a causal law that holds in S from implementation till time of outcome in which T figures as a cause of O. Help in finding shared laws:

3. So you can climb up and down across levels of abstraction without mishap. Straight sturdy ladders

4. Ensuring right ladders to right places The same isn’t always the same.

5. There may be a set of laws that • enable X to cause Y in the study • may be shared with the target. Yet in the target they do not connect X and Y. • Because what counts as a realization of a given factor in the study need not do so in the target.

6. The abstract and the concrete • Laws that hold relatively widely generally involve abstract features. • Abstract features are always instantiated in more concrete ones. • A GE Lessing fable: A marten eats the grouse. A fox throttles the marten; the tooth of the wolf, the fox. The weaker are always prey to the stronger.

7. What counts as a straight line?

8. What counts in the circs as a lever?

9. Bangladesh Integrated Nutrition Project vs the Tamil Nadu INP Bangladesh Tamil Nadu

10. Candidate shared principles, Bangladesh and Tamil Nadu • Better nutritional knowledge in mothers plus food supplied by the project for supplemental feeding improves children’s nutrition.

11. Candidate shared principles, Bangladesh and Tamil Nadu • Better nutritional knowledge in mothers plus food supplied by the project for supplemental feeding improves children’s nutrition. • Better nutritional knowledge in mothers plus supplemental feeding of childrenimproves children’s nutrition.

12. Principle more likely to be shared 3. Better nutritional knowledge results in better children’s nutrition in those who a. provide the child with supplemental feeding, b. control what food is procured, c. control how food gets dispensed and d. hold the child’s interests as central in performing 2. and 3.

13. In Bangladesh Food supplied ≠ supplementary food. Being a mother ≠ the features in b.&c. There is a shared principle at a higher level of abstraction. But there were no ladders to reach it from programme features in Bangladesh. Broken ladders

14. BINP shows… 1. The same isn’t always the same 2. This limits the usefulness of it-works-somewhere claims. But 1’. In different contexts very different things can be the same. 2.’ It-works-somewhere claims can support policy predictions far away and very different from the study populations that warrant them.

15. Finding and warranting shared laws • These can be at high levels of abstraction – so hunt there. • Warrant • Is the law really shared? • Does T in a successful study really instantiate a cause in the abstract shared law? • Does the policy really instantiate a cause in the abstract shared law in your situation?

16. Those in control of food purchase and distribution ??? Mothers Anywhere else Tamil Nadu

17. Child welfare example • Being pushed to go to parenting classes can mean different things in different cultural groups. • It could be • A learning experience • A humiliation With opposite outcomes. • This can lead both to accepting policies that won’t work for you or rejecting those that will, depending on which is study and which is target population.

18. Mind the gap Pressure to comply Humiliation Aggression Compliance Pressure to attend classes Violence towards child Attendance at classes

19. In situation S, X causes U cause V causes W…causes Y because • X and U constitute more abstract features X1and U1in S. • U and V constitute more abstract features U2andV2in S. • And so forth. • Note the new subscripts. • X causes Y by law in S but the laws that allow it to do so don’t join up.

20. Simplified pencil-sharpener: Open window (A) and fly kite (B). String (C) lifts small door (D) allowing moths (E) to escape and eat red flannel shirt (F). As weight of shirt becomes less, shoe (G) steps on switch (H) which heats electric iron (I) and burns hole in pants (J). Smoke (K) enters hole in tree (L), smoking out opossum (M) which jumps into basket (N), pulling rope (O) and lifting cage (P), allowing woodpecker (Q) to chew wood from pencil (R), exposing lead. Emergency knife (S) is always handy in case opossum or the woodpecker gets sick and can't work.

21. Mind the gap Breaching of a closed container Releasing of container contents Raising of weight at other end Pulling one end of pulley Releasing of moths Flying the kite Opening of a door

22. The road from ‘It works somewhere’ to ‘It will work for us’ requires a lot of scrambling up and down. Lesson

23. Review – relevance • Two kind of facts directly relevant to predicting ‘T will contribute to O in S’. • Production of O in S is governed by a law L in which T appears as a cause of O. • All the factors necessary under L to support T in producing a contribution to O obtain in S. • Other facts are relevant – indirectly – if they are relevant to establishing either of these facts.

24. Review – role of RCTs • A positive outcome in an RCT in situation/population X is directly relevant to ‘X is governed by a law, say L, in which T causes O.’ • This can be indirectly relevant to ‘S is governed by a law in which T causes O’ conditional on the fact ‘X and S share L.’ • Conditionally relevant on A  relevant iff A holds. • Presumably we’d like good reason before we assume this. • RCTs are not relevant to ‘All the supporting factors required by L for T to contribute to O obtain in S.’

25. In Sum… It’s a long and tortuous road from it-works-somewhere to it-will-work-for-us

26. The road is shaky and needs reliable support all the way along. And…

27. If you want to get there, maybe ‘it works somewhere’ may not be the best starting point. To consider…