roachboy

there are problems with the way in which this correlation is being discussed, however.

seaver is correct in that correlation is not causation.
but it does not follow that all correlations are equal.
there are stronger and weaker.
and there are false ones.

the logic behind correlations here is basically a syllogism.
you know, the "all cretans are liars" thing (a=b, b=c, so a=c)
the issue with this is simple: if the variables you introduce into the game are screwy, the results of the operation will not tell you anything about that--all a syllogism does is enable you process whatever variable you introduce in a manner that is (presumably) formally correct.

among the problems with the definition of variable are:

1. you cannot equate the range of small dissident muslim groups that are the center of this contruct "terrorist" these days with islam as a whole and not end up with worthless correlations.

2. you cannot operate with no strict definition of what "terrorism" is and not end up with worthless correlations.

there are others that have to do with the effects of the category "terrorist" in stripping all considerations of politics away, all considerations of often very complex contexts, of simplifying situations not because they are amenable to it, but because you have introduced a fucked up category and find yourself performing the implications of that category as such (and not as a descriptor involving "the world")

on the first, i would hope that the problem is self-evident.
on the second, everything turns on the notion of "terrorism"--which is self-evidently an empty signifier that is given such content as it has as a function of ideological framing devices---if it means anything, it means "actions the present american administration does not like." and its specific signified is filled in by political argument.

so say you were to ask people in--o i dont know--indonesia, say the question "do you approve of the actions of al qeada?" the responses would not translate into "do you approve of terrorism" in any rational way simply because the question is not being interpreted that way in the survey--in other words, al qeada's actions mightbe understood elsewhere as political--that is about particular issues directed against reasonable targets with particular ends in mind--none of which follows from the notion "terrorism"

this kind of problem seems to me so entirely self-evident that i find it cotinually baffling to read posts from folk, particularly on the right here, that attempt to gloss over them--i assume that if you thought about what you were saying, you would in all likelihood not say it, simply given the severe problems of defining the basic terms--and a syllogism is really a kind of stupid machine in that (again) it does not enable any evaluation of WHAT is being processed, it simply IS a process.

given that, i tend to assume that the persuasive power of this kind of argument has to come from somewhere else--it is not reasonable analytically, it is flawed logically, etc.---and i find few good places to go in order to explain why these arguments are held up as viable.

so this explains to some extent my reactions to this kind of argument and to this kind of thread.

good to see folk putting their cards on the table above, tho, and beginning to nuance what they have been posting on this. thought i would do the same.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite