Logic vs Bunk in Middle East Analysis
Middle East punditry, like all political punditry, is mostly bunk. It pretends to be analysis, but it is generally propaganda for a given point of view. Is there an objective way to tell the difference? I think there is. Continued...
A policy prescription based on a valid logical argument may take the form, "If X then Y." For example, "if the bread is moldy, don't eat it," "If inflation is high, raise interest to tighten the money supply," "If the economy is depressed, use government spending to stimulate it." The argument is valid and the analysis can be trusted as sincere, even if not correct, as long as the prescription changes in a logical depending on conditions. However, suppose an "analyst" "explains" at one time that the government should spend money because the economy is depressed. A few years later, during prosperity, the same "analyst" advocates spending money in order to share the wealth. We can surmise that this person simply wants the government to spend money, and is looking for excuses to justify their position. That type of analyst is like the broken clock, which tells the correct time twice a day.
 If you like this post – click to Reddit!
| |
 add to del.icio.us |  Add to digg - digg it
|
Ami Isseroff on 08.20.07 @ 02:18 PM CST [link]
