It is so exciting and interesting and weird and magical and like an authentic expression of self all at once.

All of that is totally banal but I still think it is really cool. It feels exciting to be in it - to be chopping onions and have an idea or turn of phrase pop into my head, or to open a Word doc and to find the page filling up - to discover what I think as I am seeing the words appear on the page.

Or just anyone at any career stage!

Our account helps to explain which normative principles we ought to accept, and as a result it can explain why it is acceptable to make inferences involving race in some contexts (e.g., in defense of affirmative action) but not in others (e.g., in defense of racial profiling).

In this paper, we provide an account of induction in social contexts and explore its implications for policy.

In comparison to the normative step, the inductive step of a policy defense may seem trivial. We argue that this is not so. Satisfying the demands of the inductive step is difficult, and doing so has important but underappreciated implications for the normative step.

Next, there is an inductive step in which the statistic is projected from the past to the future. Finally, there is a normative step in which a policy is proposed as a response in the service of some goal—for example, to reduce crime or to correct socioeconomic imbalances.

Abstract

Most social policies cannot be defended without making inductive inferences. For example, consider certain arguments for racial profiling and affirmative action, respectively. They begin with statistics about crime or socioeconomic indicators.

Done!

Already done!

Done!

You are already on the list!

Done!