[lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs. Experience
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 08:05:40 -0700
Robert, apparently Simon wants to go on; so you be the judge
Simon asks if I accept that the "war in Iraq created more fundamentalists
than there were before." The initial discussion began not with a question
but with an assertion, "Lawrence, my assertion is a simple one. The war in
Iraq has caused moderate muslims to be attracted to fundamentalist ideology.
Because of the war (which, it should be noted, had nothing to do with 9/11),
there are now more fundamentalist muslims than there were before. Because of
the war in Iraq, people died in Madrid and London."
I know of no evidence to support Simon's assertions and beliefs. I spent
some time with the question of how many Moderate Muslims there were in the
Middle East, with Omar, and we discovered that we couldn't find any evidence
one way or the other; so I ask what evidence Simon had to support his
assertion that there were fewer Moderates and More Fundamentalists in the
world (he didn't want to restrict this matter to the Middle East) and he
responded with
"It's not just the extremists in the middle east that are the problem. It's
also the home grown ones. How do I know there are more extremists. Because
they blew up trains in London and Madrid and because I've heard interviews
with muslims in Britain who cite the Iraq war as a major contributing factor
in the formation of their views. And yes, there are moderate muslims all
over the world. They're the ones trying to explain that the extremists don't
represent Islam, they're the ones saying how they never knew that their
friend was involved. But they're also the same ones pointing at Iraq and
saying how they understand why this is going on."
Note that Simon changed "fundamentalist muslims" to "extremists." I don't
have a problem with that. But it is in the above section that he provides
his evidence for his assertion that the number of "Fundamentalist Muslims"
aka "extremists" have increased as a result of the war in Iraq. Here is his
evidence: Because they blew up trains in London and Madrid and because he's
heard interviews with muslims in Britain who cite the Iraq war as a major
contributing factor in the formation of their views."
I recognized his argument as a fallacy and attempted to explain that to him.
I continue to believe that the term "Anecdotal Argument" is essentially "The
Fallacy of Hasty Generalization," but I won't insist on that. His Fallacy
is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. He cites two terrorist attacks and
an unknown number of interviews that he has heard as evidence that the
number of extremists has increased. We need not go into his subsequent
assertion, namely the reason for the increase, to see that he is guilty of
the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization. His sampling is not sufficient to
justify his conclusion.
To tidy things up let me say that if he could produce a sampling that did
support his assertion that I would accept the conclusion that the war in
Iraq caused an increase in the number of Extremists. However, he has not
produced such a sampling; so I do not accept his conclusion.
Would you like to lecture one or the other of us now, Robert?
Robert needn't comment (unless he wants to) on what follows:
As to the rest of what Simon has written, I presented my understanding of
Pakistan's situation and he responded with his own understanding. I noticed
at once that there was a major gap in it. He neglected to describe the
occasion for our being allies with Pakistan. He didn't deal with our
needing Pakistan's cooperation prior to and during the invading of
Afghanistan in order to drive out the Taliban and pursue Al Quaeda. He
asserted that the US was being hypocritical in wanting Pakistan as an ally
while ignoring that Pakistan was an ally against the Taliban and Al Quaeda.
Why the US would be hypocritical for wanting Pakistan's help in opposing the
Taliban and Al Quaeda he doesn't explain. He just laughs. Whether laughter
is a fallacy I won't pursue.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:47 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
You should have been a politician Lawrence. You're so adept at avoiding the
question. In this instance you try and pour scorn on the questioner.
Here's what Jeremy Paxman would do: he'd ask the question again. And again.
And again. So:
Do you accept that the war in Iraq has created more fundamentlists than
there were before?
"In the meantime we must deal with the world as it is. Not all nations are
presently Liberal Democracies. Pakistan is not a Liberal Democracy. We
know that. Everyone knows that. We must deal with Pakistan as it exists,
not as we would like it to be."
This made me laugh, it really did, especially the last sentence. Here we
have a country that, along with Afghanistan and, arguably, Saudi Arabia, was
the most responsible for 9/11, a country that is a dictatorship, a country
that is one of the principle centres of mulsim extremism, and what was the
US response...let's be allies. Meanwhile, there's Iraq, a country not
responsible for 9/11, a country without WMD, but with a ruler who pissed off
Bush and which happens to have a load of oil and what was the US
response...let's invade.
That's the hypocracy Lawrence, or it would be if this was a war on terror,
or a war for liberal democracy.
"And then you conclude with the belief that I will be speechless as a result
of your brilliant analyses: [ ] "
Ah now Lawrence, you see that was a debating tactic, to make sure you
wouldn't actually walk away again...
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 2:15 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Ideology vs Experience
Simon
I was so appalled at the ignorance of the first part of your message that I
neglected the ignorance in the rest of it.
You seem unable to grasp the difference between a hypothesis (advancing a
theory of what the future will consist of) and current diplomatic demands.
I suspect many on the Lit-Ideas Left of not being able to read my entire
messages, but maybe it is worse than that with you. Maybe you can't follow
an extended argument. I don't know how else to account for the silly thing
you wrote in your paragraph that begins "As for Pakistan. . . "
Of course if you have neither read nor understood my previous posts on this
subject, you won't understand this one either, nevertheless -- since you
have my attention -- you need to see that there are two very different
matters:
1. The theory that Liberal Democracy is the End of History was
developed by Fukuyama and has a certain degree of currency at the present
time. It is opposed by Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilization thesis.
These are theories. Neither of them is proved. It would be nice if all
nations were Liberal Democracies, but that is not presently the case.
2. In the meantime we must deal with the world as it is. Not all
nations are presently Liberal Democracies. Pakistan is not a Liberal
Democracy. We know that. Everyone knows that. We must deal with Pakistan
as it exists, not as we would like it to be.
Beyond that I didn't apologize for Pakistan. You are making that up. Did
you think I wouldn't notice? I suppose this is another case of your not
reading my note and just guessing as to what I was going to say. I'm very
familiar with that approach. But anyone wishing to can see what I actually
said, two notes below this one, and see that you are either lying or as I
believe guessing because you can't bear to read my notes.
The world is not made up of Liberal Democracies. Perhaps one day it will
be, or perhaps not. In the meantime we must on occasion exercise
realpolitik, in other words deal with nations we don't like but can't
change. Listen to Irene, she is urging us to use realpolitik with Iran:
getting Bush to sit down with Ahmadinejad over a cup of coffee and having a
heart to heart.
And then you conclude with the belief that I will be speechless as a result
of your brilliant analyses: [ ]
Lawrence
_____
Other related posts:
