As you continue working on your draft, I want to give you something to think about with the next set of readings. Academic writing requires that you support your assertions with empirical data and/or scholarly research (indicated by an in text citation). What and who you cite matters. One article and one book chapter are assigned. Both are posted on Classes.
The first, Odds Are, It’s Wrong by Tom Siegfried and the second Chapter 1 in Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us – And How to Know When Not to Trust Them by David H. Freedman.
As you are aware, your strategy must be support by extant research. The purpose of these readings is to help you think about, recognize and mitigate any weaknesses or limitations inherent in the theory/theories you selected and/or empirical research upon which you built your strategy. Based on your reading of these materials:
1) How do YOU define an expert? DO NOT use any materials, beyond the two readings, to create your definition
2) What factors do Freedman attribute to the failings of informal experts?
3) Siegfried focuses on the methodology used and conclusions drawn by formal experts. What is Siegfried suggesting regarding the scientific method’s use of statistical analysis to test hypotheses?
4) How do we know that these experts (the authors of our two readings) aren’t wrong in their conclusions?
Note: An effective means to undermine an argument is to attack the major premise (the foundation the argument is built on) or if that is not possible, a minor premise contained therein. Are there any assumptions you made regarding your strategy that should be restated, clarified or revised?
