1421 Postscript: No evidence is evidence

[muckefuck]

Thanks to the influence of an ex-ex-boyfriend, I can no longer sit on the crapper without a book in hand. I had to go, 1421 was at hand, so--G@d help me--I took it with. In the few pages I read, proof positive of Eco-defined lunacy: An argument from negative evidence. This pops up so consistently in nutball theses, it should be considered diagnostic of them. Let's just rechristen it "the Lunatic Defence".

Here's how Menzies does it. He's scrolling through a microfilmed version of a Chinese manuscript, I Yü Thu Chih[*] or "The Illustrated Record of Strange Countries", which he dates to 1430 (i.e. after the Zheng He expeditions) even though the OCLC bibliographic record says "Ming Hongwu"--that is, during the reign of the first Ming emperor, which ended in 1398. Honest mistake or deliberate falsification? Hmmm... In any case, he's looking at the pictures, since, as we've figured out, he can't read a word of the text!

The Chinese incorporated only what they found strange, and there are therefore very few scenes of China itself....Two things particularly surprised me, The first was the emphasis placed on people from the far north....The second curious aspect was how little space was devoted to Australia; I could only assume that was because by 1430 it was no longer considered a 'strange country'.

Sheer brilliance! The book only covers strange countries; it contains little or no material on China or Australia. Ergo, Australia must have been as familiar to the Chinese as China! (BTW, if you've ever wondered what it means to "beg the question", here's a perfect example. He should be looking in this work for evidence, pro or con, that the Chinese had been around the world. Instead, he assumes that to be true and explains the lack of evidence away in light of it.)

Hey bonehead! Did you ever consider that the reason the book doesn't talk about Australia is that the Chinese didn't know it existed? Of course not! You've got your lunatic thesis and everything you find proves it.

It reminds me of the scene in Foucault's Pendulum where Diotallevi is arguing that he must be Jewish--just look at his surname. Belbo points out that his surname, far from being Hebrew in origin, is the kind given to foundlings in that part of Italy. Diotallevi responds that, since his grandfather was a foundling, no one can prove that he was not Jewish and Belbo says that, for that matter, no one can prove he isn't a Habsburg bastard or the lost Byzantine heir. No evidence is no evidence; it is isn't carte blanche to fill the blank spot with whatever you wish to be true.

Not unless you're a LOON.


[*] As he calls it; proper Pinyin would be Yi Yu Tu Zhi, but he must consider this work "familiar to Western readers" despite the fact that the only extant copies of the print and microfilm are in the East Asian Collection at Cambridge and no part of it has ever been translated.

Comments

[gopower.livejournal.com]

Never listen to ex-exs! Regardless of the book, it ain't a reading room.

http://quickcare.org/gast/hemorrhoids.html

And of course you know you can't return the book once it's been in the bathroom.