Any one of us can be mistaken. It is always good to be shown by others in what way we are mistaken, so that we can correct ourselves. That is, of course, the the way that we progress in science. Being told that we are "intentionally ignorant" or other such ad homonyms is not helpful. I hope we can restrain ourselves from that sort of thing in the future.
Bill Scott >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 03/16/08 4:16 PM >>> Thanks Joan. Your mea culpa is admirable, especially in a wide public forum. I have only lurked on this discussion and found the interchage enlightening both about the book and the nature of such discussions. This is what tips is all about for me. I'm not sure a moderated list would have worked as well. A Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 12:15:10 -0500 (CDT) >From: "Joan Warmbold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [tips] Nurture assumption >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <tips@acsun.frostburg.edu> > >All responses to my criticisms of Harris are totally on the mark. I >prefer to have footnotes on each page so I can verify the source of >various statements as I'm reading. But that's me. Harris, indeed, >provides notes for each of the statements in each chapter, though these >notes don't provide the source per se--those are provided in the list of >references. I apologize for all of you fans of Harris's work for my >inaccurate contentions about her book. > >I feel there are many sound studies to disprove the contention that >parents are not crucial to the development of their children but that's an >entirely different issue. My apologies to all on this listserv for my >sloppy scholarship. It wasn't intentional as I truly hadn't noticed the >NOTES, just the list of references. Mea culpa. > >Joan >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >>> I wrote >>> > In my copy [of The Nurture Assumption], Harris lists 391 footnotes >>> > referencing her arguments,... >> >> And Allen Esterson replied: >> >>> On a purely factual matter, the number 391 at the end of the endnote >>> section (p. 418) is not the number of the endnote but the page number >>> to >>> which the relevant note refers. There are actually around 700 >>> endnotes. >>> (For some pages of the text there are more than one separate >>> endnotes.) >> >> Allen's right (Gad, how I hate having to say that). After carefully >> explaining the matter to warm and bold Joan, I forgot and confused the >> page number 391 with the number of endnotes. I estimate that there must >> be between 600 and 700 different endnotes (too weary to count 'em all) >> and around 700 specific citations to the literature, the vast majority of >> which are to peer-reviewed scientific publications. >> >> This impressive number makes Joan's claim, aided and abetted by Paul >> Brandon, that Harris fails to document her sources and relied on >> anecdotes outrageous. If you want to trash a work, fine, but do it on the >> basis of what the author has actually written. To do otherwise is >> intellectually dishonest. >> >> Stephen >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- >> Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. >> Professor of Psychology, Emeritus >> Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> 2600 College St. >> Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 >> Canada >> >> Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of >> psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> --- >> To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >> Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> >> > > > >--- >To make changes to your subscription contact: > >Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
