This chapter is an introduction to the research and writing undertaken by those who have researched the reshaping of the education system. It begins by giving a recent history of the country and particularly the disruptive events of 2022. The argument is that Kazakhstan is at a pivotal moment in its culture and development as an independent, post-Soviet state. The introduction also outlines the key aspects of the education system, previous research by this team plus the major themes and structure of the book.

Chapter 5 moves from theory into evidence and discusses how empirical economists think about causality. First, the chapter covers common issues that make it difficult to have confidence in causal claims based on associational evidence alone. Then, experimental evidence is discussed: how to run an experiment, common pitfalls that can undermine confidence in experimental evidence, and what can be done to avoid them. Next, major experimental studies on the impact of health insurance are described. Finally, the chapter discusses the concept of quasi-experimental evidence and how it fits into economics. The end of chapter supplement discusses ethics in research with human subjects and the role of institutional review boards.

This chapter focuses on the practice of engaging in argument from evidence. In each chapter, the practice is dissected into distinct and clear learning tasks that can be used as process goals. These tasks are then examined within the context of a self-regulated learning cycle. A multistep coaching strategy explaining points for instruction and assessment is provided using the example of a design challenge for students in grades K through 2. The design challenge asks students to identify a problem to solve from a picture book and use the engineering design process to solve that problem. The tasks (process goals) are reassembled into two case studies – one positive and one negative – to demonstrate how the learning tasks can be used by students.

This final chapter explores some of the key issues arising from the book. Perhaps the most important is that if we are going to apply narrative psychology, then we need a good body of evidence that it works. Narrative needs to be at the heart of mainstream psychology, but in order to be in this position, we need a lot more evidence regarding its efficacy. We have good evidence that narrative exposure therapy works, and that writing can help relieve stress. These provide evidence for the fundamental idea that narrative generally is effective, but we need to develop the evidence regarding areas such as narrative therapy and narrative coaching, where there is very little good evidence. There also needs to be a recognition that a lot of what psychologists do now is narrative psychology under another name. Storymaking and storytelling are such natural processes that we can take them for granted, but, for instance, most forms of psychotherapy are about changing one story for another. Occupational psychology is similar, one story about work needs to be exchanged for a better one. Psychology as a science needs to be more explicit about its use of narrative across many situations.

The Introduction provides a brief but broad overview of narrative, partly historical, partly theoretical, showing a little of how narrative came into psychology and the problems associated with it being considered as a part of narrative science. It also addresses the problem of defining what we mean by narrative, before addressing the issues surrounding the applications of narrative. The last part of the chapter provides outlines of the remaining chapters in the book.

Traditional theistic arguments conclude that God exists. Pragmatic theistic arguments, by contrast, conclude that you ought to believe in God. The two most famous pragmatic theistic arguments are put forth by Blaise Pascal (1662) and William James (1896). Pragmatic arguments for theism can be summarized as follows: believing in God has significant benefits, and these benefits are not available for the unbeliever. Thus, you should believe in, or “wager on,” God. This chapter distinguishes between various kinds of theistic wagers, including finite vs. infinite wagers, premortem vs. postmortem wagers, and doxastic vs. acceptance wagers. Then, it turns to the epistemic–pragmatic distinction and discusses the nuances of James’ argument, and how views like epistemic permissivism and epistemic consequentialism provide unique “hybrid” wagers. Finally, it covers outstanding objections and responses.

Bayes factors – evidence for one model versus another – are a useful tool in the social and behavioral sciences, partly because they can provide evidence for no effect relative to the sort of effect expected. By contrast, a non-significant result does not provide evidence for the null hypothesis tested. If non-significance does not in itself count against any theory predicting an effect, how could a theory fail a test? Bayes factors provide a measure of evidence from first principles. A severe test is one that is likely to obtain evidence against a theory if it were false – to obtain an extreme Bayes factor against the theory. Bayes factors show why cherry picking degrades evidence, how to deal with multiple testing, and how optional stopping is consistent with severe testing. Further, informed Bayes factors can be used to link theory tightly to how that theory is tested, so that the measured evidence does relate to the theory.

The ability to respond critically to any text is a learnt ability which needs some innate ability before it can be developed. That is, critical thinking is a variegated talent, linked to intelligence and curiosity, which is hard-wired into the human brain but is not always fostered equally. We are all different according to aspects of biology, intelligence and personality. Likewise, we are all different according to our experience of being encouraged to use these natural abilities. Indeed, there is even some evidence that critical thinking is an ability that is only really developed at all after the teenage years. This idea is consistent with other theories of literacy, which state that there must be an inherent ability to decode language before it can be developed, and that any form of literacy is incremental. That means that each layer of literacy builds on previous levels, and that we must be cognitively ready for each stage. Critical literacy is, therefore, a higher level of literacy which builds on foundational forms of literacy. We need to be able to decode language systems at the semiotic, denotational and connotational levels in order to produce sense. Once we produce this meaning through textual reception, we can start to definitively question what we are being told, building on whatever latent critical ability we already have.

This chapter on fact-finding and expert evidence considers how the Court has treated competing evidentiary claims, and how it engages in a fact-finding process, looking at the evolution of the Court’s process in this regard. The author evaluates the significant criticism that has been directed against the Court in respect of its approach to fact-finding and the ways in which the Court has begun to address those criticisms.

This chapter analyses Thucydides use of sources and his approach to evidence. It surveys his (possible) use of documentary sources and eye-witness testimony, before going on to discuss specific types of evidence cited in the text: inscriptions, letters, poetry and prose writing. The second part of the chapter explores the ways in which Thucydides’ approach to history (and to the writing of history) might have influenced his use of sources, drawing particular attention to the influence that Thucydides’ views of religion might have had on his presentation of events.

The day after the massacre, the judicial authorities in charge canvas Dongo’s neighbors, seeking information about any strange sounds or other unusual events that they observed the day before. Although Dongo paid a hefty sum to rent his spacious home and warehouse, he shared the neighborhood with a diverse group of small businessmen and their families. Some rent rooms, and others maintain large households in two-story buildings. The local residents have a good reputation. All are known as honorable men, however humble. Some of these witnesses were lucky to have one last quiet night before awakening to the shocking massacre which took place just steps away from their doorways. But others experience strange sightings and sounds which disrupt their rest and foreshadow the terrible discovery made the following morning of October 24.

For many writers, one singular clue symbolizes the Dongo massacre and its rapid resolution by the Novohispanic judiciary. Written accounts obsess over one tiny bloodstain which plays a critical role in the events that took place from October 23 to November 7. This chapter continues to discuss the investigations of the murderers, including an array of different clues, not just the famous single drop of blood.

Only hours after discovering the victims’ bodies, Emparan, the judge in charge, initiates investigations in the neighborhood around Dongo’s house and other sections of the central city. He also sends out an alert to New Spain’s local leaders, calling on judicial officials across the viceroyalty to participate in the search for the perpetrators. Their initial goal is to find witnesses who had observed any suspicious activities in the area. Secondly, the judge sought to determine the provenance of the still-unknown murderers’ weapons. Emparan’s interrogations allow him to create a timeline of events leading up to the Dongo massacre. These initial efforts do not provide the clues necessary to solve the case. However, as gossip spread throughout the city and the court works hard to find the perpetrators, Emparan’s rapid actions encourage Mexico City residents to carefully observe anything unusual that they witness in the days after the crime. As a result, Emparan ascertains and arrests the perpetrators within a few days. The entire process proves the effectiveness of the Novohispanic judiciary.