Looking for help: what's the opposite of counterfactual reasoning -- in other words: when effective altruists encourage counterfactual reasoning, what do they discourage?
I ask because I'm writing a chapter for a book about good epistemic practices and mindsets. I am trying to structure my writing as a list of opposites (scout mindset vs soldier mindset, numerical vs verbal reasoning, etc).
Would it be correct to say that in the case of counterfactual reasoning there is no real opposite? Rather, the appropriate contrast is: "counterfactual reasoning done well vs. counterfactual reasoning done badly"?
[This was first posted as shortform on the EA forum but I got no replies; hence trying it here, too. Thanks for any help you might provide!]