= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
James_Miller comments on [Link] A rational response to the Paris attacks and ISIS - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (275)
Nearly the same could have been written after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor if you replace Muslims with Asians. My view is that political correctness stops westerners from considering certain weaknesses, and the big danger is that ISIS realizes and seeks to exploit this willful blindness.
If we're drawing comparisons, it's been widely recognized that the internment of Japanese Americans was a bad idea.
And what about the subsequent war against Japan?
You mean the part where the U.S. commits the most horrendous and indefensible act of needless overkill on an enemy who was already brought to the point of surrender?
Let's assume that given what people knew at the time, it was a good idea. Don't you still think that today it would still be "widely recognized" as a bad idea?
Actually, historians, including some of my colleagues at the Ohio State history department, have found that the internment was not based on credible information, but an rampant anti-Asian racism. By comparison, Germans were left alone, with no restrictions of any sort on their civil liberties, not to speak of internment.
"Actually, historians, including some of my colleagues at the Ohio State history department, have found that the internment was not based on credible information, but an rampant anti-Asian racism."
I would expect most historians to conclude this regardless of evidence. I don't trust academia on matters of political correctness. Imagine a non-Asian history grad student tells you that he has found evidence that FDR had based his internment policy on credible evidence, and this grad student asks you if political correctness would make it difficult for him to get a job if he publishes a paper on this topic. What would you tell him?
You are welcome to mistrust academia, but it doesn't mean you can dismiss the evidence with simply saying you mistrust academia. Peer review is peer review, in all cases and contexts.
I would tell him he has a great shot, as he would then gain a great deal of attention if he actually had credible evidence and countered the previous evidence convincingly.
EDIT: Now how much have you updated based on my response, to both questions? Do you consider evidence to be evidence? Do you consider my credibility as an academic historian to be evidence? If so, how much have you updated? If you have not updated, I would urge you to reconsider your level or rationality.
You haven't presented any actual evidence.
What credibility? Your ridiculous response to James Miller's second question, shredded whatever credibility, you still had left.
"Peer review is peer review, in all cases and contexts" I trust you really don't mean this. If a woman studies journal publishes a peer reviewed article saying that 25% of women on college campuses have been raped, I trust you would give this statistic almost no weight.
I don't mistrust academia on all topics, just on issues related to political correctness. Lots of women studies professors say that gender is a social construct. This sends a strong signal about the value of truth in some areas of academia
I update a little in your favor, but I'm an academic myself (an economist at Smith College) so my priors are fairly strongly held.
"I would tell him he has a great shot, as he would then gain a great deal of attention if he actually had credible evidence and countered the previous evidence convincingly." Yes, just like Larry Summers received when he suggested that genetics MIGHT play a role in why so few women are in sciences. When I mentioned at a panel on free speech at Smith College that I thought Larry Summers was probably right about this, another professor on the panel said I didn't belong at Smith.
The key weasel phrase is "credible evidence." And yeah, it would be tantamount to career suicide for any humanities PhD student to argue in his dissertation that the internment of Japanese Americans was a good idea. (Maybe he could get away with it if he were Japanese.)
Many, perhaps most cultures and subcultures have taboos. In Thailand, you don't insult the King. In Saudi Arabia, you don't insult Islam. And in the American Academy, you don't say anything which might be construed as racist.
Peer review is peer review, correct. I don't say all peer review processes are made equal. If a woman's studies journal published it, I would consider it very weak evidence if the journal published similar things before. If it did not, I would consider it moderately weak evidence. Also depends on who is on the masthead of the journal.
Yeah, I hear you about Summers, that was a witch-hunting campaign.
A grad student offering a credible evidence would make a nice career out of it. I have a high probability estimate of this, and have seen plenty of examples in my field to provide support for it. Paradigm-shifting claims, credibly presented, are powerful makers of careers.
"have seen plenty of examples in my field to provide support for it." Are these examples of where the thesis was politically incorrect?
"Yeah, I hear you about Summers, that was a witch-hunting campaign." Doesn't this provide strong evidence that you can't trust many academics on issues relating to race and gender?
Yup, the examples were where the thesis was politically incorrect. For instance, there were a number of graduate students in Soviet history who made careers claiming that the Soviet Union was more violent than the politically correct, leftist historical mainstream narrative depicted. Similarly, I know a graduate student who made a career out of showing that the Amish were actually much more tolerant and respectful toward women than the historical mainstream narrative depicted.
There's a large gap between saying that the hounding of Summers was a witch-hunting campaign, and that one can't trust many academics on issues relating to race and gender. The latter is a categorical and absolutist statement, one that does not nuance then situation in any significant way. It doesn't acknowledge that weak evidence is still evidence, or that plenty of academics - such as myself and apparently you - have more complex and nuanced takes on women and gender and race.
I don't think the comparison is valid, if anything it's the opposite; the Pearl Harbor attack was intended as a devastating blow, to crush the American naval capability on the Pacific. The United States then did the opposite of what the Japanese intended, rebuilt the fleet and committed fully to the war.
The Japanese empire wasn't primarily using Perl Harbor as a PR tool. They were already powerful with lots of people and lots of resources.
That was one empire attempting to deliver a crippling blow to a competing power. They didn't need to recruit Japanese from around the globe or elicit donations to their cause.