From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 09:43:41 MST
Michael writes
> One of the best exchanges I have read on Noam Chomsky and his views on
> Cambodia can be found here...
>
> http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/media1.htm
>
> Enjoy
Thanks. The article start off a little roughly, but then
settles for me into what are key paragraphs (paragraphs 9
and 10:
> What is most noteworthy about "Starvation and Revolution" is the manner in
which it was received by the far Left at the time of its publication. The
most prominent scholar to praise the book was the esteemed Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky described the book as "a carefully documented study of the
destructive American impact on Cambodia and the success of the Cambodian
revolutionaries in overcoming it, giving a very favorable picture of their
programs and policies, based on a wide range of sources." He went on to note
that "it has not been reviewed in the [New York] Times, New York Review, or
any mass-media publication, nor used as the basis for editorial comment,
with one exception. The Wall Street Journal acknowledged its existence in an
editorial entitled 'Cambodia Good Guys'... which dismissed contemptuously
the very idea that the Khmer Rouge could play a constructive role..." <
> How could Chomsky have so seriously misjudged the nature of the Khmer Rouge? One reason is what I would refer to as the "The Curse
of the Generalist." Chomsky writes about events all over the world. Can one person really understand all of the intricacies of the
politics and history of any one country? Probably. But can one person understand the intricacies of ten countries? fifty? two
hundred? No. There are conflicting accounts of the history of any country and any event. How can a person who does not have
specialized knowledge of a given country evaluate which of those accounts is accurate? In Chomsky's case, he does not evaluate all
sources and then determine which stand up to logical inquiry. Rather, he examines a handful of accounts until he finds one which
matches his predetermined idea of what the truth must be. He does not derive his theories from the evidence. Instead, he selectively
gathers "evidence" which supports his theories and ignores the rest. Furthermore, he does not subject sources he regards
sympatheticly to the same rigorous critical scrutiny that he applies to conflicting accounts. The book by Hildebrand and Porter
provides a perfect case in point. <
Well, the author, Mr. Bruce Sharp, may be right about
"The Curse of a Generalist", but that cannot be the
whole explanation, because I'm pretty sure that you
could find an extremely knowledgable leftist scholar
on Cambodia who defended the Khmer Rouge to this day.
But Sharp is closer, IMO, when he says: "Rather, he
examines a handful of accounts until he finds one which
matches his predetermined idea of what the truth must be."
Exactly so. This is the scientific method. You will
find that scientists in reality already have a hunch
to what is going on, and look for evidence to support
it. In the end, if they're right like Einstein, they
die but are acclaimed. If they're wrong, like Lamarck,
then they die but are discredited. (There is no such
thing as "The Scientific Method" as presented in your
junior high school class, and as believed by most bad
philosophers.)
Am I, or are we, really any different from Chomsky?
Well, it's easier for me to change my mind because
I don't have millions of fans around the world
depending on me to champion their indictment of
the West. So, *sometimes*, especially after the
passage of years, I can admit that I was wrong.
Noam Chomsky cannot.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:39 MST