Michaell Perelman writes: >> If the cost/benefit analysis had some objective basis, it would have more >> credibility (ignoring questions about what should/should not be included, >> it might have some basis. It could be compared to a legal opinion. A good >> lawyer can argue either side. Is it an act of irrational stubbornness to >> resist a lawyer's brief? >> >> In short, cost/benefit is not scientific at all.
I disagree for the following reasons, keeping with your analogy. In the adversarial system, the legal brief is explicitly used for advocacy and is acknowleged by all parties as such. However, the purpose of advocacy is to persuade, and persuasion is rooted primarily in substance, not rhetoric. Therefore, it would be irrational stubborness for a trier of fact/law to ignore the content of a brief merely because the brief persuasively argues for a result that the trier does not like. Further, the analogy to cost/benefit analysis is not the brief, but the expert report, which is presumably "objective" (to the extent it is not, it will lose credibility). The expert makes certain assumptions and then reaches a conclusion. The advocate then uses the report as part of its advocacy. In other words, as I said before, the cost/benefit analysis is data that goes into the decision-making process, it is not the decision-making process. I don't know what you mean by "some objective basis." Hopefully, like all other expert reports, one can evaluate the analysis by its content -- are the assumptions sound, are the facts correct, etc. If they are not, the analysis should be criticized on that ground, not on the mere fact that it is comparing costs and benefits. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
