This 4 page essay explores the effectiveness of Craven's rationalizing in "What's the Worst that Could Happen?" It looks at three features including the grid, faith in science, and surety in the methodology of getting the word out. Bibliography lists 1 source.
Name of Research Paper File: JV57_JVgregcraven.rtf
Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
Greg Craven has issued a call to action based on the results of his credibility spectrum showing that inaction, no matter the economic costs of true or false variables,
is the worst possible choice for the human race. Craven has taken the stance of a scientist and not gotten into debates over whether whales are saved or fertilizers will
enter water systems. He has not tried to prove he is a great thinker. Craven has taken the debate to the highest minimalist level, and as such, it is over.
As Craven says, its time to either act or not act. Craven puts it in the context of risk theory via a
comparison grid shows that the decision must be for action. Rationally, within the grid, the fact that the question is over the survival of the human race is irrelevant.
Personal choice resides in the decision to take this to the next level, Craven says. The method for doing that is to introduce
others to his simple, but effective rational process. Yet, by spreading the word, any response means taking action. Rationality of the Magic
Grid Cravens risk or credibility grid has been called many things, most of them related to its utter simplicity and not complimentary. Using
such a grid, anyone can make anything come out to the conclusion sought. However, if the assumptions are correct, Craven says, then the grid still proves that action is the
better choice. Even when he changed assumptions, however, the outcome was the same. Under the inaction column the risk of inaction is too devastating to consider. Therefore, there is only