Re: [xmca] Watson redux

From: E. Knutsson <eikn6681 who-is-at>
Date: Tue Dec 11 2007 - 14:23:00 PST


In an earlier posting here, the Watson theme came up again, now recycled as a
kind of argumentum ad hominem, apparently implying that a person's views can be
refuted by a reference to his/her genome.

I do not feel called to evangelize or advocate any particular view, so if
you're not convinced by the articles, that's completely unproblematic as far as
I'm concerned.

I'm likewise not convinced that ethos and pathos should prevail over logos in
scientific discourse.


On 2007-12-11, at 21:40, Paul Dillon wrote:
> E
> I looked at both the Times report and the separated twins articles an
really wonder about the value of the findings in both cases mainly because of
the problems of compartive research in general (cf. mike cole and barbara means
book on same: "Comparative Studies of How People Think")
The second study didn't convince me that it could actually control for
similarities in the environmental differences.
So it is another view but not a very convincing one.
xmca mailing list
Received on Tue Dec 11 16:41 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 07 2008 - 10:13:50 PST