On May 19 Stephen Black wrote in relation to Frank Sulloway�s *Born to
Rebel* [snip]:
> Sulloway's thesis is
> that birth order is a variable of great significance throughout
> history and that, in general, later-borns are "born to rebel". My own
> acquaintance with his theory is modest. I've quickly read thorugh his
> book and came to the opinion that while it purported to be a
> scientific evaluation of the evidence bearing on his theory, it was
> more literary than scientific, more pseudo-science than science.
>
> However, it has been taken seriously. For example, MIchael Shermer,
> the editor of _Skeptic_ magazine, callled it "the most rigorously
> scientific work of history ever written {cited by Townsend (2000, p.
> 205))...
The reception given by reviewers of *Born to Rebel*, generally positive,
raises an issue that has long concerned me, the propensity of book
reviewers, especially in the broadsheet press, to be impressed by a case
on the basis of its superficial plausibility, rather than on hard-earned
evidence that it withstands close critical examination. With a book like
*Born to Rebel*, containing a huge mass of information presented in a
variety of ways, I would have thought that, however interesting one found
the thesis, one could only reserve judgement until such critical analyses
had been undertaken. This was the position taken by the biologist Lewis
Wolpert in the Times Higher Educational Supplement, with a dose of healthy
scepticism thrown in. Wolpert noted a number of occasions where �Sulloway
explains away behaviour that does not fit with his theory. The result is
that the book contains a great deal of very interesting information on the
personalities and childhood of many scientists. But one cannot help
feeling that this is gossip rather than science, however persuasive his
arguments are�� Wolpert�s conclusion: �One is left with the suspicion that
given a detailed account of family history and early experiences, then
with Sulloway�s type of analysis one could account for any later behaviour
� but with birth order being relevant, though less important, than he
would have us believe.�
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.human-nature.com/esterson/index.html
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=10
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=57
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/articleprint.php?num=58
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
