Michael Perelman writes: >> David, the cost/benefit calculations are a form of advocacy. That was my >> point. >> "Experts," of course, are often advocates as well -- pretending to offer >> scientific >> objectivity.
I don't know what we are disagreeing about, because I don't dispute that cost/benefit calculations are almost always a form of advocacy. But that is true only in the sense that ALL research and analysis is a form of advocacy -- I don't know why you pick on cost/benefit analysis. As a lawyer, I am used to advocacy and see nothing wrong with it. Just because something is produced by an advocate and used by an advocate does not make it untrue, meaningless, easy to ignore. In conclusion, I repeat that cost/benefit analysis is inherently/inseparable part of decision-making, and the resistance to formalized cost/benefit analysis is simply stubborness when the analysis produces a result contrary to intuitive ethical judgments. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
