The Status of Likelihood Claims in International Relations and Peace Science

Raymond Dacey
Additional contact information
Raymond Dacey: University of Idaho Moscow, Idaho, USA, rdacey@uidaho.edu

Conflict Management and Peace Science, 2005, vol. 22, issue 3, 189-200

Abstract: Many of the best scholars working in International Relations and Peace Science have employed statistical (e.g., logit/probit) and theoretical models to buttress claims of causally increased or decreased probabilities. The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to display the applicability of the tools of probabilistic causality and statistical explanation to assessing analyses in International Relations and Peace Science, and to assess the status of the claims of causally changed probabilities made in these disciplines. The paper displays the applicability of the relevant tools of probabilistic causality and statistical explanation by examining two remarkably interesting analyses due to Russell Leng and Patrick Regan. The paper concludes that claims of causally changed probabilities commonly made in the International Relations and Peace Science literatures are suspect.

Keywords: logit analysis; probit analysis; likehood claim; relevance; screening off; common cause (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/07388940500200625 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:compsc:v:22:y:2005:i:3:p:189-200

DOI: 10.1080/07388940500200625

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Conflict Management and Peace Science from Peace Science Society (International)
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().