Anti-Americanism based on misconceptions?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous (Czech-Related)' started by Sova, Aug 18, 2008.

  1. wer

    wer Well-Known Member

    The universities in the Western Europe are in large measure influenced by the 1968 student rebels. While most of the American "sixtyeighters" turned to be standard American "capitalists", their European collegues turned to be left-wing politicians or university professors and preachers of anti-Americanism.

    No, one can’t rule out most of the factors during the statistical analysis, that’s mathematically impossible. You can rule out a set of factors, but the collection of all factors is a class, not a set. But I bet one could find such a set of factors to make the results statistically insignificant, resp to make the analysis unproportionally data-consuming.
    The only chance to rule out all the factors is in the stage of the experiment. You have to organize it, that means to determine who has or has not to smoke and to control the lives of all the people for decades. But such a Mengeleian experiment is hardly thinkable.

    I gues we are arguing in circles :D.
    What I try to say is that the anti-Americanism could be driven by some specifical misconceptions, but it is rather the specificity of the misconception what drives it. Or alternatively, it is not driven by misconception, but by something else via (some) misconception.

    I often wonder whether it is scepticism or empiricism. Czech opposition is mostly based on parallels in the past.
  2. scrimshaw

    scrimshaw Well-Known Member

    You guys would be amazed to know how much the anti american agenda is firmly entrenched in american academia too.
    They earn, after so many years as a teacher, something called 'tenure', and that allows them to spew any radical philosophy they want without loosing their job, under the banner of free speech.
    One well known anti american 'professor' is some guy named Warren? Churchill.
    Their are many others.

    I would say anti americanism is fueled by propaganda, because a lot of people believe propaganda, and if that is all they here, without an opposing view, then their beliefs are definitely shaped by that.

    The people that believe that the US govt. was involved in 9-11, believe that because they want to believe it. And they are fed an endless amount of unfounded charges over the internet that supports their view..
    It goes back to the saying...People believe what they want to believe.
    Who needs facts when your mind is already made up?
  3. Sova

    Sova Well-Known Member

    Both good points. Thanks!

    True. My point was not to imply that such statistical analysis might prove anything. Rather, that many points of uncertainty can be contraindicated by more careful collection and analysis of data, where possible/feasible (which again assumes sufficient volume of data). Causal links, as you point out, can in theory be proven through carefully controlled experiment, but in practice such control is virtually impossible, or at least as you pointed out, unethical.

    Trends, correlations, indications and contraindications constitute the vast majority of what we consider "scientific" knowledge in fields such as social sciences (sociology, psychology) and medicine, and this is due to the horribly nonlinear nature of the subjects (i.e. humans) being studies. Scientific proof, at least according to the standards Feyman describes, is difficult to come by, so researchers must make do with what they have. I personally, take most most medical and social science studies with a grain of salt.
  4. scrimshaw

    scrimshaw Well-Known Member

    Similarly, Sova, I take most political commentary, issuing forth from the political parties with a grain of salt. Hardly no real objective analysis, only spinning information in a way that makes their candidate look good.

    And on the experiment front.....that is why they have 'blind' tests, right? To prevent the tester or the guinea pig from contaminating the experiment with their own preconceived notions.
  5. Ctyri koruny

    Ctyri koruny Well-Known Member

  6. dzurisova

    dzurisova Well-Known Member

    what does that mean?
  7. Alexx

    Alexx Well-Known Member

    Off topic joke:

    Rice: How dare Russia occupy territory of sovereign country?
    Bush: Yes! That is what WE do!

    (poster seen in City of London)
  8. wer

    wer Well-Known Member

    That means we are not allowed to delete our own posts.
  9. BMoody

    BMoody Well-Known Member

    "Asked if it was true that "from 1973 to 1990 the United States sold Saddam Hussein more than a quarter of his weapons," 80 per cent of British respondents said yes. However the US sold just 0.46 per cent of Saddam's arsenal to him, compared to Russia's 57 per cent, France's 13 per cent and China's 12 per cent."

    This is great quote from that article. I wish the world could see it from the US's point of view more. It seems everyone just closed down and didn't let the argument in. I mean, at the time the US sold weapons to Iraq, Iraq was fighting Iran. The US helped Iraq fight Russia supported Iran. It was a different world.

    So the US sold weapons to the Afghan Muhajadin... they were fighting who? Only 2000 of those Afghan fighters were Taliban arab insurgents that eventually usurped to take control of Afghanistan. How could we have reacted back then to stop it? Who's sphere was Afghanistan then?

    Basically, these two incidents need to be viewed with the shadow of the Cold War deeply considered. Sometimes, I think European politicians have a smaller short term historical memory than the American public servants.

    For instance, I just read that some US soldiers will be allowed to gaurd the Czech radar while it is being built. These soldiers were the same solders that stood outside Berlin telling the Soviets to go no further, yet they will surely be recieved badly in the Czech Republic even though the radar will give collective NATO security.

    100 acres to protect Europe from ICBMs of crazy rogue nations... Pretty good deal if you ask me. If we tick off Russia, all the better. They need to wake up to the EU/US world.
  10. eso

    eso Well-Known Member

    But I'm sure you know, that if Soviets decided to go further, these soldiers would be sweeped away in no time.
  11. BMoody

    BMoody Well-Known Member

    They still stood there. :-]
  12. MK

    MK Well-Known Member

    Anyway we are moving off topic. The US radar matter has nothing in common with antiamericanism. Majority of Czechs just dooes not wish any foreign soldiers stationed in CZ.
  13. wer

    wer Well-Known Member

    No, the US helped the secular Iraq fight the Islamic Revolution in Iran.
    Russia formally stayed neutral, but in fact it sided with the socialistic Iraq.

    I think it is the other way. ;-) The American understanding of history is simplicistic and often based on impressions instead of facts. It's similar with the West Europeans, just the impressions are different.

    The history learned us not to play with feelings this way. The Soviet soldiers who invaded us in 1968 were the same who liberated us in 1945, the US soldiers that stood outside Berlin were the same soldiers who stayed in Pilsen in 1945 not helping the uprising in Prague.

Share This Page