I finished reading The Eagle’s Shadow last night. I picked this book out at the store because I thought it might be a sincere examination of America’s relationship with the world. The fact that one-line reviews on the cover were from Salon and New York Times didn’t deter me. I was really disappointed. Mark Hertsgaard spent a lot of travel time collecting quotes, but little else in terms of research for the book. And the quotes come from people in his social circle, regardless of country.
On occasion he mentions the things that foreigners love about the US, but….And so it goes. And many times he falls back on the “it’s all our fault” stance. We just don’t spend enough money helping everyone else in the world. We didn’t build enough child care centers in Afghanistan. We didn’t help the Arabs drive the Jews into the Sea. It all got very old. I’m sure the Barbra Streisands of the world love this book. I didn’t, and it wasn’t from any preconception.
As an antidote, today I read Why the Muslims Misjudged Us by Victor Hanson.
For all the frothing, it seems that millions of our purported enemies wish to visit, study, or (better yet) live in the United States–and this is true not just of Westernized professors or globe-trotting tycoons but of hijackers, terrorists, the children of the Taliban, the offspring of Iranian mullahs, and the spoiled teenage brats of our Gulf critics.
I intend to do a bit more research on the topic, but have to throw in just a bit right now. For all the talk of how much we owe to the Arabs in regards to science and math, it seems those who translated European texts into Arabic, and did any research during Europe’s Dark Ages, were Christian and Jewish Arabs. Not Muslim. It seems to make sense. Islam does not allow critical thought. I throw this in off the top of my head, but I remember reading about these topics in A History of the Arab Peoples. More on that later.
Two different takes, one with a focus on the Middle East, and the other on the world as a whole (although most of Hertsgaard’s examples come from the ME). Hanson’s logic is deductive, and Hartsgaard’s is inductive. I’ll side with Victor.
“Hanson’s logic is deductive, and Hartsgaard’s is inductive. I’ll side with Victor.”
I too side with Victor, but I don’t understand how deductive logic is better than inductive logic in this instance.
Both kinds of logic work only if one has a sound starting point (valid premises in the case of deduction and valid data in the case induction).
By saying that Hanson is deductive, you imply that you think his premises are valid. So do I, but this is not going to convince people not already on our side. A critic could easily say that his premises are flawed, so his conclusions are probably also flawed. (I say “probably” because it is possible to come to the right conclusions through luck in spite of wrong premises.)
I think inductive logic is a better tool for winning people if data gathered from outside, disinterested sources is used.
Hartsgaard did not do that. He himself gathered limited data and can be accused of hearing only what he wanted to hear. Talking solely to people in his social circle does not reflect how *whole countries* perceive America.
I would say that Hanson is the truly inductive one here, not Hartsgaard – his article debunks two false premises with a flood of facts that can be verified from external sources – whereas Hartsgaard only has anecdotal evidence on his side.
Comment by Amritas — March 25, 2004 @ 7:07 pm
I bow to the man more knowlegeable of semantics!
My view of inductive reasoning is the drawing of conclusions from incomplete information rather than the typical “If X and Y then Z” where X and Y are knowns. I think you are right in that I assume fact to be fact. Hartsgaard, as you say, may have facts, but they are not a broad repesentation.
Using inductive to win people over may work, but I doubt it would with people already certain of what they perceive as fact.
Comment by Bunker — March 25, 2004 @ 8:04 pm