On the Tuskagee episode Michael Sylvester writes: >Baloney is still baloney whether it comes from cited studies or so called >authoritative references.
Michael: Please point out where any TIPSter writing on this topic has alluded to "authoritative references". "Baloney" is not a valid critique in the absence of point by point rebuttals of the arguments in question (for the most part tentatively proposed for consideration rather than asserted). How about doing some intellectual legwork instead of instant opinionizing. [I may have just invented that word, but as Americans have a penchant for verbing [sic] nouns, I hope it is acceptable. :)] >I may agree that someone who is not a part of the system can present a more >objective outlook, however not being a part of the system can have certain >disadvantages. I woild prefer the field studies of Margaret Mead in Somoa >anytime (She lived among the Somoans) to a treatise presented by someone >who never met a Somoan. Here's a novel suggestion, Michael. How about judging a work on its merits, as far as these can be ascertained? (And citing Margaret Mead on Somoa is not the most felicitous example you could have chosen.) >One of the problems with this Eurocentric penchant for objectivity is the >isolation of the independent variable robs reality of real content. Michael, perhaps you'd like to expand on this, with examples, so that we are in a position to judge whether or not this statement is baloney. >And now we are going to analyze the Kitty Genovese event? >I guess it never happened. The only way I am able to interpret this comment is that there are only two possibilities. Either the account as generally presented is close to the truth, or the episode didn't happen at all. Is that really your view, Michael? Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org/ --------------------------------------------- Sat, 7 Jul 2007 14:58:11 -0400 Author: "Michael Sylvester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Tuskegee :racist study > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Joan Warmbold" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 2:24 PM > Subject: [tips] Re: Tuskegee :racist study > > > > Sorry Michael but your post was a classic non-sequitur. Might work with > > many white Americans who have every reason to feel shame and guilt about > > the countless racist events in our history--up through Bushies taking > > ex-cons off the voting polls. But Chris's comments about the Tuskegee > > study were well cited and supported. If you feel you can reasonably > > dispute folks comments about the cited study, go for it. But to dispute > > listserv members' comments based on them not living in the US?? Totally > > irrelevant. > > > > Joan > > Baloney is still baloney whether it comes from cited studies or so called > authoritative references. I may agree that someone who is not a part of the > system can present a more objective outlook,however not being a part of the > system can have certain disadvantages.I woild prefer the field studies > of Margaret Mead in Somoa anytime(She lived among the Somoans) to a treatise > presented by someone who never met a Somoan. > Let us not forget to differentiate between past and current validity. > One of the problems with this Eurocentric penchant for objectivity is the > isolation of the independent variable robs reality of real content. > And now we are going to analyze the Kitty Genovese event? I guess it never > happened. > Come on gimme a break. > > Michael Sylvester,PhD > Daytona Beach,Florida --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
