I think we've now reached an adequate point of conclusion:
To summarize Mr. Ulrich's latest post:
1. He doesn't think his previous litany of
unfounded emotional attributions is "ad-hominem."
Yet, he continues the same strategy here, characterizing
the Hausman-Steiger report as an attempt to "threaten"
administrators [by presenting relevant facts...]
And, he quotes ad hominem attacks by others as part of
his argument.
2. He feels my previous tone was "nasty" and "beligerent,"
although there was no such tone. [Apparently, anyone asking
Mr. Ulrich to justify a statistical conjecture with an
argument is being "nasty" and "beligerent."]
3. Mr. Ulrich then proceeds to completely ignore
the statistical issues, and launches into another
irrelevant attack. Indeed, he uses a standard ploy,
"argument by Granting Agency." [a standard feminist
ploy, born of argumentative desperation]
Finally, Mr. Ulrich capitulates completely on the statistical,
logical, and moral issues issues, simply stating that he is pleased
with the outcome of the MIT report. The final two paragraphs are
classic, and, unfortunately, only slightly more irrational than what
normally is provided to justify reverse discrimination.
It is quite amazing to see a "biostatistician" formally
arguing in print, that one university's ignoring [suppressing?]
relevant information would provide justification for other
universities to declare the same information "irrelevant."
Truly "Landgrebian"!
Of course, the moderately astute undergraduate with minimal
training in critical thinking will recognize Mr. Ulrich's
final circularity, which goes something like this
"The MIT report's misleading statements about performance
are ok, because, well, I like what MIT did, and now other
administrators can do similar things, and justify them on the basis of
what MIT did."
I think I can rest my case now.
--------------
James H. Steiger, Professor
Dept. of Psychology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1Z4
-------------
Note: I urge all members of this list to read
the following and inform themselves carefully
of the truth about the MIT Report on the Status
of Women Faculty.
Patricia Hausman and James Steiger Article,
"Confession Without Guilt?" :
http://www.iwf.org/news/mitfinal.pdf
Judith Kleinfeld's Article Critiquing the MIT Report:
http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/#note9back
Original MIT Report on the Status of Women Faculty:
http://mindit.netmind.com/proxy/http://web.mit.edu/fnl/
On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 16:03:36 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Mar 2001 10:38:59 -0800, Irving Scheffe
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:28:53 -0500, Rich Ulrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:49:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Irving
>> >Scheffe) wrote:
>> >
>> >My comments are written as responses to the technical
>> >comments to Jim Steiger's last post. This is shorter than his post,
>> >since I omit redundancy and mostly ignore his 'venting.'
>> >I think I offer a little different perspective on my previous posts.
>> >
>> >[ snip, intro. ]
>>
>> Mr. Ulrich's latest post is a thinly veiled ad hominem, and
>> I'd urge him to rethink this strategy, as it does not
>> present him in a favorable light.
>
> - I have a different notion of ad-hominem, since I think it is
>something directed towards 'the person' rather than at the
>presentation. Or else, I don't follow what he means by 'thinly
>veiled.'
>
>When a belligerent and nasty and arrogant tone seems to be
>an essential part of an argument, I don't consider myself to be
>reacting 'ad-hominem' when I complain about it -- it's not that I
>hate to be ad-hominem, but I don't like to be misconstrued.
>
>I'm willing, at times, to plunk for the 'ad-hominem'.
>For instance, since my last post on the subject, I looked at those
>reports. Also, I searched with google for the IWF -- who printed the
>anti-MIT critiques. I see the organization characterized as an
>'anti-feminist' organization, with some large funding from Richard
>Scaife. 'Anti-feminist' could mean a reasoned-opposition, or a
>reflex opposition. Given these papers, it appears to me to qualify as
>'reflex' or kneejerk opposition. Oh, ho! I say, this explains where
>the arguments came from, and why Jim keeps on going --
>Now, THIS PARAGRAPH is what I consider an ad-hominem argument.
>And I'll give you some more.
>
>Scaife is a paranoid moneybags and publisher who infests this
>Pittsburgh region (which is why I have noticed him more than a
>westerner like Coors). His cash was important in persecuting Clinton
>for his terms in office. For example, Scaife kept alive Victor
>Foster's suicide for years. He held out money for anyone willing to
>chase down Clinton-scandals. Oh, he funded the chair at Pepperdine
>that Starr had intended to take.
>
>Now: My comment on the original reports: I am happy to say that it
>looks to me as if MIT is setting a good model for other universities
>to follow. The senior administrator listens to his faculty,
>especially his senior faculty, and responds.
>
>MIT makes no point about numbers in their statements, and it
>does seem to be wise and proper that they don't do so.
>
>I see now, Jim is not really arguing with MIT. They won't argue back.
>
>Jim's purpose is to create a hostile presence, a shadow to threaten
>other administrators. He goes, like, "If you try to 'cut a break'
>for women, we'll be watching and threatening and undermining,
>threatening your job if we can."
>
>I suppose state universities are more vulnerable than the private
>universities like MIT. On the other hand, with the numbers that Jim
>has put into the public eye, the next administrator can point to the
>precedent of MIT and assert that, clearly, the simple numbers on
>'quality' are substantially irrelevant to the issues, since they were
>irrelevant at MIT.
>
>Hope this helps.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
