Re: [xmca] Watson redux

From: Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think who-is-at>
Date: Tue Dec 11 2007 - 19:24:04 PST

  When you posted those articles to the list, I assumed you did so for the purpose of discussing them i n relation to the topic of the relationship between genetics and culture.. If you examine my post, you will find that I only used claims to reason and evidence, not to character , emotion or norms which seems to be the point you've raised about my post.

"E. Knutsson" <> wrote:

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

Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
xmca mailing list
Received on Tue Dec 11 19:26 PST 2007

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