Thu 13 May 2004
In our discussion of Marc Lynch’s use of the word “illegal” to describe Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Shamus Brady ‘04 had this to say:
When you or anyone else here becomes an expert on the Middle East (as he is) then you can debate him. Until then shut it…and have a nice day.
There are two things wrong with this, one small and one large. The small thing is that Lynch is not an “expert” on the Middle East. As his CV makes clear, his expertise — i.e., those areas in which he has published scholarly books and articles — is much more focussed on the Arab world, especially Jordan and Iraq, with an emphasis on the public sphere. Lynch knows, of course, much more about the Middle East in general (including Israel) than I or the vast majority of people at Williams. But more knowledge does not equal expertise.
Yet that is a mere quibble. Allow me to grant that Lynch is the world’s greatest expert on the Middle East. No one anywhere knows more than he does. Does it follow from this that he is always right? Does it follow that I should change all my opinions to agree with his? Does it follow that it would be a waste of time for him to debate me, or anyone that knows less than he does?
No.
If it did, then Brady would certainly have an easy time of things. Instead of trying to form his own opinions about tax policy or the financing of higher education or military strategy, he could just go ask the experts. Since there is no point in debating the “experts,” he should just take dictation from Professors Bradburd, Schapiro and Wood — experts all — on what to think.
The fallacy here is too tedious to walk through [Thank goodness! -- ed], but the point remains. Just because Lynch (or any Williams professor or any other expert) says that “X is true” does not mean that “X is true.” Of course, there are a spectrum of possible X’s to consider. I am much more likely to accept it as fact if Lynch were to say that “About 100,000 Israelis live in the West Bank” then if he claims that “Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal,” much less when he writes that “the administration needs to engage the new Arab public sphere that has emerged.”
All these X’s may be true. All may be false. Yet it is left to me to ask questions, follow references, consider arguments and come to my own conclusions. If Lynch declines to answer any questions — to even provide citations to the factual claims that he is making — then he not the sort of professor, much less the sort of expert, that Brady should be spending time with.
Brady seems to be leaving Williams with precisely the wrong attitude about how best to form your own opinions about important issues of the day. Listen to the experts, by all means; but make up your own mind.
May 13th, 2004 at 11:37 pm
agreed.
illegality is a normative question, especially with respect to areas of the world where jurisdictions are contested. in fact, what the hell does legality mean in the dispute between israel and palestine? lynch may be an expert on the middle east, but on matters of ethics I don’t see a reason to defer judgment to anyone.
May 14th, 2004 at 12:37 am
experts can also become tragically calcified, ingrained in their modality of thinking, a training since graduate school in a certain fashion of thought, that they lose their ability to see problems in a new way. Rote genuflection to “experts” hardly counts as critical thought, something that Williams allegedly attempts to instill in her graduates.
May 14th, 2004 at 1:30 am
First off, I have made up my own mind on the issue before I even read what Lynch had to say and I don’t neccesarily agree with him, as you assume from my post. I don’t agree, but I don’t know enough about the issue to really get into a debate about it. Perhaps you do know a lot about the issue and if that is the case I apologize. I’ve just seen one too many arguements about this issue where neither side has really bothered to find out anything beyond the headlines in the papers.
In regards to how I leave Williams as a thinker, you shouldn’t judge me from one post in a blog, that makes you look pretty ignorant, and you aren’t an ignorant guy. I could judge from only what I have seen you right here, but I won’t because I don’t know you. I’d ask you to show me the same respect.
Finally perhaps you didn’t realize that my tone was mainly a jocular one, in the vein of, “here we go again” with the Israel/Palestine debate.
In closing, I don’t appreciate you making a post about me and what I said. You could have debated me on the other post itself, but to my knowledge you didn’t do that. So that is all I am going to say. Please don’t start anymore posts about me.
I assume you will respond, but I am done reading ephblog, so if you want to continue this discussion, please email me 04smb@williams.edu.
May 14th, 2004 at 1:34 am
of course without preview post I screwed up
“I could judge from only what I have seen you right here”
right should be write
goodnight
May 14th, 2004 at 1:53 am
I think the “jocular” tone of this comment sounded more aggressive, implying that unless individuals discussing the topic were as learned as the great Mark Lynch they should keep their mouth shut. If this is humor, then I’m Joe Stalin.
And its a free country–everyone gets posts about them–EVERYONE!
May 14th, 2004 at 6:34 am
What in the hell has happened at Williams in the few years that I have been gone that has turned everyone into the mindset of “if I don’t agree with this, or it might challenge me directly, then I don’t want it to exist”?
While I agree that it might have been better served in a comment on that thread - I think Dave likely 1) was not trying to single you out in an aggressive way but merely was interested in a discussion/debate, and 2) chose the method that he did since it would likely have a better shot at garnering a discussion instead of getting lost with an older post.
May 14th, 2004 at 8:51 am
Who implied that students, alumni or anyone should just accept what Professor Lynch has to say? There was no suggestion of thought police. I took Shamus to mean that Lynch doesn’t have the time to debate with any/every person on the web (as it has been pointed out recently, Ephblog is not an official website). He saves his energy for experts in forums like Foreign Affairs and ThomasPaine.com (with a readeship consderably larger than Ephblog). In fact, the suggestion I made to David’s original post was to publish a critique in Foreign Affairs (or Tom Paine) and Lynch would most likely take your argument seriously. No one has the time to respond to everyone with an opinion on rarely read websites. As Eric pointed out recently, getting worked up about the contents of a site with little traffic is silly.
As an analogy, Tracy McGrady doesn’t play pick up basketball against every schmoe who challenges him to a game. If TMac were to do so, he wouldn’t have the energy (or time) to play professionally at the highest level. Despite not accepting challenges, basketball fansknow that TMac is a good basketball player because they can publicly watch him play against other good basketball players. In the same way, you can read Lynch’s published articles. I believe there was also an accompanying piece with Lynch’s article (since the author is a rabbi, I’ll assume he disagree with Lynch). Luckily, it is easierfor you to publish on Thomaspaine.com than for me to make the NBA and play against TMac.
A a strategic matter, I’m not sure it is a good marketing move:
a) For a blog to be quite so self-referential. Ephblog wants to discuss “all things Williams,” but seems to veer into “all things Ephblog” from time to time.
b) Call out people who post and make them the focus of a new thread. Readers will be far less likely to post when they might be singled-out for their comments later on. Reader’s who disagree with the contents of the website would disagree even more. At the very least, it will encourage people to post anonymously, which makes the site less personal and can lead to a different type of post (as responses to a comment by Sam Crane demonstrated).