On 13 Apr 2005, at 8:14 PM, Ken Moore wrote:
First, that's not what Paglia is actually arguing,
Perhaps you should tell us what she is arguing then.
Uh, have you read the quote in its original context? Not that I recommend this -- it's incoherent. Paglia is a horrifically bad writer and sloppy thinker and I honestly don't know why anyone takes her seriously.
Regardless, it's pretty clear that whatever she is doing (or thinks she's doing) she's *not* marking an argument founded on empirical or statistical data.
That's an assertion that ought to be justified by a scientific argument.
As I understand it, some aspects of the present model of heredity
predicted that statistics on some data would have certain
characteristics. The data were collected, the statistics were
calculated, and the predicted characteristics were observed. This is
called the scientific method.
Ken, I'm not sure if you're *trying* to be unbelievably patronizing, but if so, congratulations, you've succeeded admirably.
I'm quite familiar with the research you refer to about statistical distribution in men and women, etc etc etc. However, your summary is grossly oversimplified, the actual research has many credible critics, and the major questions arising from it are far from settled. I'm frankly sick to death of this particular debate, having had my fill in the wake of the Lawrence Summers controversy, but if this is a discussion you think is worth having, I encourage you to take it to one of the many ev psych discussion forums.
- Darcy ----- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
