Ensign Flandry to the arch-appeaser, Hauksberg:
"'How can you say that?' Flandry choked. 'Haven't you read any history? Haven't you listened to Merseian speeches, looked at Merseian books, seen our dead and wounded come back from meeting Merseians in space? They want us out of the universe!'"
-Ensign Flandry, p. 188.
His arguments:
(i) History.
(ii) Merseian speeches.
(iii) Merseian books.
(iv) Our dead and wounded.
(i) People can and do learn every possible lesson from history in general! Or does he mean, more specifically, the history of human-Merseian relations to date? That should give a good indication of Merseian intentions.
(ii)-(iii) An even better indication, reinforcing (i).
(iv) is not an argument. Either side in any armed conflict can make an emotional case by pointing to their own dead and wounded. I remember a witness in a famous televised Inquiry throwing down a photograph of the grave of a freedom fighter as if that alone were sufficient to prove the rightness of one side and the wrongness of the other.
However, in the case of the Merseians, I think that Flandry wins three points out of four.
The readers have a privileged position. We read the private conversations of both Terrans and Merseians. The author is omniscient about his characters - or stacks the deck, depending on which way you look at it. Brechdan Ironrede, Merseian, says:
"'[The Terrans] were magnificent once. They could be again. I would love to see them our willing subjects.' His scarred features drooped a little. 'Unlikely, of course. They're not that kind of species. We may be forced to exterminate.'"
-CHAPTER TEN, p. 92.
(Brechdan should meet the Doctor Who villains, the Daleks: "Exterminate! Exterminate!")
Hauksberg, if he heard Brechdan, would think, "What he calls 'willing subjects,' we call 'willing allies.'"
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I think you are missing the point Flandry was making in point (iv). Those Terrans were killed or wounded BECAUSE the Merseians were acting out what they had declared in those books and speeches.
It would have been poetic irony and justice if Brechdan Ironrede had suddenly been forced to deal with Stirling's Draka!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That's fair enough about (iv) but it needs to be spelt out a bit more.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
True, except Flandry was forgivably upset and angry at that moment.
Ad astra! Sean
Hauksberg is a fictional illustration of the power of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.
Generally speaking, people reason backward from the conclusion they want, not forward to it.
We're rationalizing animals, not rational beings.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. And we are seeing far too much of that kind of confirmation bias and unsound motivated reasoning in DC these days. With catastrophic results!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Bear in mind that it's much easier to see -other people's- confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. If you don't -want- to believe the rationalization, it springs out at you.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree! And I sure as heck DON'T want to believe what "Josip" and his Democrats say. For amply good and sound reasons.
And I should keep in mind how * I * can fall into confirmation bias and motivated reasoning.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment