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.
@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.
@KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine Isn’t an appeal to academic credentials an Argumentum ad populum logical fallacy and inherently classist?
@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.
@KarunaX @ymishory @Kirilov @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine You mean Khalidi? Have you even read the text? Said is not a historian and Pappe does not come to the same conclusions.
@Kirilov @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine What am I not getting here? Study at advanced academy isn’t trustworthy simply because a large number of people say so. If anything, the position that high education isn’t trustworthy has lately become a rather popular argumentum ad populum…
@gimulnautti @Kirilov @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine 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, this interlocutor is engaging in sophistry and not dialogue. Logical fallacies are tools to understand when someone is hijacking our emotions
@Kirilov @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
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.
@Alexandrad1 @Kirilov @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine “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”
@Kirilov
Uh, no. You’ve excluded the most important part:
>(…) of someone who is taken to be an authority but is not really an authority.
- Standford page that you’ve linked.
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, (…)
- Uni of NC
@Alexandrad1 @gimulnautti @KarunaX@mastodon.world @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
@Kirilov @Alexandrad1 @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
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
@Alexandrad1 @Kirilov @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine Yes - these logical fallacies do obviously apply here.
@Kirilov @gimulnautti @KarunaX @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine
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.
@Kirilov @gimulnautti @ymishory @appassionato @bookstodon @palestine 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?