On Feb 10, 2007, at 2:32 PM, David Epstein wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007, Rick Froman went:
Can anyone explain to me the logic behind this quote from the
article:
"If the mechanisms underlying sexual orientation can be discovered
and manipulated, Dr. Wolpe continued, then the argument that sexual
orientation is based in biology and is immutable 'evaporates'". Since
when are "biological" and "immutable" synonymous?
The "based in biology" portion of that statement has no logical
connection with what follows it *or* with what precedes it. Let's
give Dr. Wolpe the benefit of the doubt by assuming that his words
were sloppily paraphrased.
Well, here is a different take: In the phrase "...based in biology
and is immutable..." the "and" may equally well taken to mean "and
therefore". This does not clear the logic, however, but for a
different reason: No science is "immutable" as we have seen
throughout the history of the sciences. Biology has undergone many
changes and no doubt it will continue to be revised. I think Wolpe
would have done better to say something such as "...becomes more
persuasive" or "becomes stronger than the arguments denying the
biological basis...". and the like.
Although I do not, for a moment, think Wolpe is guilty of this,
attributing immutability to science is just as dogmatic as the
claims of "Creation Science"(sic).
Peter
Peter Harzem, B.Sc.(Lond.), Ph.D.(Wales)
Hudson Professor Emeritus
Department of Psychology
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849-5214
USA
Phone: +334 844-6482
Fax: +334 844-4447
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Personal E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription go to:
http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
