RC Macaulay wrote:
The analogy I drew regarding truck drivers came from a report by a medical
team from Texas Medical Center Houston returning from a summer in Uganda
Africa.
Was that an analogy or a statement of fact? As an analogy it may be valid,
albeit overblown, but I very much doubt that actual truck drivers anywhere
in the world behave this way. If you are asserting they do, you should
present some evidence. It should not be hard to find: third world
automotive accidents and fatalities have been extensively researched by the
WHO and many other organizations.
This reminds me of a statement in the Atlanta Journal & Constitution op-ed
page today. A State Representative wrote about the problems of immigrants
in the U.K. who do not join European society. Then he described the U.S.:
"Immigration today has a different twist than when many of our ancestors
came to America in the early 20th century. Today's newcomers whether
legal or illegal often resist assimilation. They prefer living in
separate communities . . ."
Okay, that is plausible. It might be true. But the writer presents no
evidence for it, so as far as we can tell it is mere opinion. He should
have said something like: "according to a study from XYX" or "based on high
school test records from the last 50 years" or -- at least -- "it is my
impression having toured these communities that . . ." If he does not have
any evidence, he should not say it. If cold fusion has taught us anything,
it is that the world has suffered long enough from people who spout the
first thing that pops into their heads and jump to conclusions about
subjects they know nothing about.
Furthermore, how does this guy know what immigrant communities were like in
the early 20th century? Does he know insular they were, how often
immigrants returned to the mother country, or how often adult immigrants
learned English? I have read enough books and personal accounts of that era
to know that many commonly accepted notions about 20th century immigrant
society are stereotypes, and reality was complicated. Furthermore, whatever
happens to adults in today's communities, the outcome and attitudes of
their children is likely to be different. The U.S. is not Europe.
That is the key difference between academic science and ordinary life:
unsupported opinions do not count. You have to have quantitative facts and
valid reasoning. Of course "facts" may be incorrect, especially in a fuzzy
area like social science. But you have to make an effort to marshal facts.
One of the medical team overheard a native use the analogy to explain the
difference in the two cultures. I thought it profound in its simplistic view.
Okay, we agree it is simplistic. Let me point out that people can be racist
fools bigoted against their own societies. I have heard Japanese people
describe their own culture as "imitative" more times than I care to
remember. There is a grain of truth to that, but it ain't profound.
Having said that, I certainly agree with the many experts who say Moslem
society is in crisis because they reject modernity and science. Experts
agree that irrationality and fatalism are a problem. We suffer from the
same syndrome in the U.S., but they are worse off. My point yesterday was
that their belief system once supported a vibrant, progressive scientific
culture, and there is no reason to think they cannot return to that tradition.
I will not make an apology for expressing my views on cultures. Let facts
be submitted to a candid world !
What facts? Your views plus 60 cents will get you a Hershey bar in the
candy vending machine downstairs.
- Jed
- Re: Toward the Next Crusade Jed Rothwell
-
