The Hundred Years' War on Palestine
A History of Settler Colonial Conquest and Resistance, 1917-2017 by Rashid Khalidi
A landmark history of one hundred years of war waged against the Palestinians from the foremost US historian of the Middle East, told through pivotal events and family history.
@KarunaX @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
The choice of phrases such as "War on Palestine" and "Settler Colonial Conquest" suggests to me a bias. All historians are biased, of course, but this seems somewhat excessive for academic objectivity.
Then again, I haven't read the book. Mr. Khalidi might present a well-constructed and fact-supported narrative that justifies the strong phrases on the cover, in which case I will gladly admit my mistake.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] When a description of reality sounds biased to you, the easiest explanation, and the most correct one, is that it's your own bias the one that keeps you from engaging with reality.
@ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine Those phrases suggest to me a certain narrative, one based in an anti-colonialist perspective, similar to what we see with examinations of other settler-colonial societies (South Africa, Australia etc). And yes, I agree, all historians are telling a story from a certain position. Mr Khalidi's academic credentials suggest that the content will be somewhat rigorous.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Isn’t an appeal to academic credentials an Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy and inherently classist?
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] What am I not getting here? Study at advanced academy isn’t trustworthy simply because a large number of people say so. If anything, that high education isn’t trustwortht has lately become a rather popular argumentum ad populum..
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] My point is they don’t address the actual arguement. They address the person making it. It’s also an appeal to accomplishment. By addressing the context and not the point the person is engaging in sophistry and not dialogue focused on understanding the truth. Logical fallacies are tools to understand when someone is hijacking our emotions
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Rubbish. Absolute rubbish. It seems you have been captured by a love for the rules of logic, but have (illogically) misapplied these.
@KarunaX @Kirilov @gimulnautti @ymishory @appassionato @palestine How have they been misapplied?
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Read back over this thread - and especially your posts - and you will easily see where you are subjecting logic to irrational contortions.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
It seems logical to me to expect solid work from someone known for producing solid work, and I see no fallacy here.
@Alexandrad1 @Kirilov @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine Then go read the wiki or stanford philosophy encyclopedia entry for logical fallacies. These are textbook examples.
@Kirilov @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
These textbook examples do not apply here, for the reason I mentioned.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] “An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of argument in which the opinion of an influential figure is used as evidence to support an argument.
All sources agree this is not a valid form of logical proof, that is to say, that this is a logical fallacy”
@[email protected]
Uh, no. You've excluded the most important part:
>(...) of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority.
The definition you took from Wikipedia actually does not reflect its source.
<If (..) we try to [impress the reader] with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, (...)
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Did you read the next sentence? “Similarly, when there is controversy, and authorities are divided, it is an error to base one’s view on the authority of just some of them”
@Kirilov @wrack @gimulnautti @ymishory @appassionato @palestine
Yes, I did. Why? You wish to change the subject and discuss confirmation bias now?
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Lol so you used a puppet account to intentionally act in bad faith and take a quote out of context? Wtf is wrong with you?
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Can I note that Khalid's book is not offering "opinion", but a thesis based in evidence. And I did not refer to Khalid so as to use an "influential figure" to support an argument. The argument is FROM Khalid's work.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Argumentum ad populum and fallacy of authority are not the same, you pompous prick.
You are making general opinions on a book you haven't read, based only in your inability to grasp the title.
3.You wouldn't call a book titled "History of World War 2" biased. Why do you call a book that tells the story of the 100 years resistance to colonialism in Palestine biased? It was a war, by any definition
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] They both apply. I have absolutely read Khalidi. It’s a fine text but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about logical fallacies.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
I don't want to converse about logical fallacies. I'm more interested in debating the correctness of Khalidi's title, which was the topic a few posts back, when you jumped in.
@Kirilov @argumento @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
Yes, and saying you expect a rigorous work from an historian with good academic credentials is not a logical fallacy.
If we followed your logic, we should discard all opinions coming from experts renowned in their particular field, because that would be an appeal to authority.
Basing one's assessment on solid work is not the same as citing a public figure with no expert knowledge on the issue.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] It is clear you don’t understand how logical fallacies work. I implore you to read about them.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
Why don't you illuminate us with an explanation of how a fallacy of authority fits the statement "I know Rashid Khalidi has good academic credentials as an historian, I expect his work to be rigorous". I'd be delighted to read your explanation.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/index.html
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
You implore me, I comply. The link you provided say the same thing I just told you, the logical fallacy you mention consists in appealing to people with no expert knowledge on the issue, and therefore does not apply to this particular case, as I keep telling you, since Khalidi is a qualified expert.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Kirilov just blocked me, LMAO.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
I don't want a link bro. Don't be a coward, defend your point with your own words. I dare you.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] I don’t have time to waste with trolls. Educate yourself
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Yes - these logical fallacies do obviously apply here.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected]
If they did, you could easily demonstrate it, since it's logic, instead of just claiming there is a logical fallacy.
Karuna said he expected a rigorous work, because the author is known to produce rigorous work. That's perfect logic.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] You are so obviously wrong. I am embarrassed for you.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] ‘appeal to accomplishment (also known as appeal to success) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is defended from criticism based upon the level of accomplishment of the individual making the argument’
@Kirilov @KarunaX @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
From what Google says, Mr. Khalidi is an accomplished academic, and I have the utmost respect for his credentials.
As I wrote, the book may present a coherent and fact-based narrative that justifies the title and subtitle, but that would have to include some outstanding claims and evidence.
@ymishory @Kirilov @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine I think Khalid's claims are not exceptional, but rather mainstream in academic (not populist) circles, given the numbers of other authors who propose a similar thesis. See eg Ilan Pappe, Schlomo Sand, Edward Said.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] You mean Khalidi? Have you even read the text? Said is not a historian and Pappe does not come to the same conclusions.
@[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] @[email protected] Ilan Pappe's writing is certainly in the same ballpark. Perhaps you haven't bothered reading his work? But back to the main point - the title of Khalid's book reflects the very real history of Palestine. You may not like that, but that is fact.