From: David Lubkin (extropy@unreasonable.com)
Date: Wed Apr 24 2002 - 14:03:31 MDT
At 07:13 PM 4/23/2002 -0700, jeff davis wrote:
>Fine. Let him be a loon. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the
>alleged loon's evidence is credible.
No, it's not. That someone makes an assertion does not imply that it is
worthy of investigation, response, or rebuttal. That the assertion has
significant consequences if it is true does not change this.
Because part of the evidence is who is the messenger and what credibility
they have. If someone with a strong reputation for intellectual honesty,
integrity, objectivity, past relevant accomplishment, analytical skills,
pertinent expertise, etc., says something interesting, it's worthy of
attention. As these factors are removed, and negative factors are added,
their assertions become less and less worthy of consideration.
If Robert posts something, it may not be true. But my assessment of his
credibility is high enough that I will either consider the posting to be
worth reading and thinking about, or I will file it away mentally as
tentatively true. There is some degree of transitivity. If Robert says
that Smith is credible, I will give Smith the benefit of the doubt. If
Robert, Marvin, Harvey, and Natasha all say Smith is credible, there is a
cumulative effect beyond what Robert alone would have. I use similar
mechanisms to make consumer decisions, based on my assessment of the
credibility of Consumer Reports vs. PC Magazine, or of reader's comments at
amazon.com, or eBay reputations, or voting record ratings.
(Has anyone quantified this, as part of a proposal for a reputation-based
Internet, or intelligent agents a la Pattie Maes/Firefly? It seems to me
that it wouldn't be that hard to develop mechanisms similar to browser
privacy or security policies that allow consumers to ascertain the
reputation of a site, author, or product. Didn't we talk about this stuff
on the list five or ten years ago?)
Does the speaker have a past history of exaggeration? Of outright
lying? Of omitting any evidence that undercuts their position? Of
couching their argument in emotionally loaded language? Of misrepresenting
events or the remarks of others? Do they provide verifiable sources for
their assertions? Is the argument internally consistent? Do they have an
agenda that calls their objectivity into question? Do facts that you have
high confidence in contradict or confirm their assertions? What is the
credibility of other people who support or oppose them? And so on. You
cite some other aspects to consider in an earlier post.
(A key factor is the degree to which negative information is more
influential than positive. For example, how one betrayal of trust can take
years to redeem. How one unhappy customer can affect your business more
than ten happy ones because the unhappy customer complains while the happy
ones are usually happy in silence. Does anyone have any theories as to why
this is so?)
Anyway, in looking at this guy's book, I saw enough negative indicators to
convince me that while there may be germs of truth in what he writes, it's
not worth my time to find them. For much the same reasons that while there
may be useful insights and techniques in the teachings of Scientology, it's
not worth wading through the nonsense when I can read Korzybski or Hayakawa.
I do not believe the Israelis or Zionists are lily-white. I have said as
much. A few days ago, I acknowledged that Israel tortured Palestinian
suspects.
(I'm still evolving my ethical stances. For now, I believe in certain
general principles but allow that circumstances may necessitate actions
that would otherwise be wrong. It is wrong to steal. Is it wrong to steal
bread from a warehouse to feed a starving child? It is wrong to
torture. Is it wrong to torture someone to stop the explosion of a 20 MT
nuclear device in London?)
> > I looked for a rebuttal of his book but couldn't find one.
>
>I suggest you look harder.
Google had 200 matches for "Hidden History of Zionism." None were from
pro-Israel or ostensibly neutral sites. None criticized the book at all,
except for a couple reader comments on amazon.com.
>Lack of a rebuttal would lend credibility to his evidence, but at this
>point that is premature.
Or suggest that thinking people have dismissed him as an inconsequential
flake who is best ignored, just as we do not attempt to rebut the guy on
the street with the colander on his head to block Ted Turner's mind-control
rays.
>>(One site that discussed his work suggested that a lot of his references
>>were lifted straight from other authors, particularly Noam Chomsky.)
>
>It appears--correct me if I am misreading here--that you are suggesting a
>kind of plaigerism, when in fact citing other works/scholars/researchers
>is exactly what professional scholarship is about. As to using Chomsky as
>a resource, what could be more practical considering the similarities in
>their areas of interest and their points of view?
That is not what I said. It's not that he refers to Chomsky; he
doesn't. People who have read both are claiming that rather than verifying
source material himself, he copied Chomsky's assertions and
references. This is not strictly plagiarism; it is, however, intellectual
dishonesty.
>>the collaboration between the British and the Palestinian Jews to fight
>>the Nazis during the latter part of WW II, or the Mossad teams that
>>tracked down and assassinated Nazis in hiding.
>
>These last two seem to me not germane.
One of his threads in the book is arguing that the Zionists collaborated
with the Nazis during WW II. My counter-examples are pertinent to
assessing the credibility of that assertion.
>(7) He gets some facts hilariously wrong, like in chapter 4, where he
>writes that in Israel, "in order to be entitled to
>
>Yes, this is a problem. But on balance, a small one.
It's an established principle in legal proceedings that proving the untruth
of one assertion by a witness undercuts the credibility of any other
assertions that witness may make: "falsus in uno -- falsus in omnibus." It
can be abused, but it's a handy rule-of-thumb.
> > (8) Smear by false reasoning.
>
>I don't recall seeing this, I'll go back and look. If you'd send me,
>offlist, some specific places to look, I'd appreciate it.
It shouldn't be hard to find. I think I saw an example of false reasoning
on most every page.
> > (9) I was pleased, however, to see friends of the family mentioned.
>
>I'm sure they were well dressed and well mannered. And of course, we don't
>want to believe that such things are true, or even possible, the more
>especially when it strikes close to home. But human darkness is not the
>exclusive province of Germans, Japanese, and communists.
>
>The evidence. Address the evidence.
My comments to the list in my last email were not intended as any kind of
rebuttal of Schoenman; I was merely giving my reactions.
-- David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:38 MST