On 15 Mar 2008 at 20:08, Joan Warmbold wrote: > Where ARE the footnotes Stephen? I have the book by my side (doubt > there exists more than one version) and can not find one, not one, > footnote on any page to provide the source for any of her assertions or > conclusions. Yes, there is a list of references at the end of the book > (391---is that what you mean by footnotes?) but how can a reader > determine how and when any of those references were used? I truly > welcome rebuttals but I stand by my initial statement that there is not > one footnote for any one particular statement or assertion Harris > makes.
You're putting me on, right, Joan? I can't imagine that you don't understand this, especially as Allen Esterson has provided a clear explanation of exactly how this rather ordinary scheme for referencing works. The phrase "deliberately obtuse" comes to mind. But let me try again. Turn to, for example, Chapter 3, p. 33. There Harris discusses reports of reared-apart identical twins. Then turn to the list of footnotes for Chapter 3, and note that opposite "33" (for page 33, natch) appear three references: to Bajak, 1986, to Lykken, McGue, Tellegen & Bouchard, 1992, and to Wright, 1995. These are the carefully-documented sources for the information she provides on reared-apart identical twins on p. 33. Now turn to the alphabetic list of over 700 different publications starting on p. 419. Here you discover that Bajak (1986) is a newspaper article in _The New Jersey Register_, that Lykken et al (1992) is an article in _American Psychologist_, and Wright (1995) is an article in _The New Yorker_. Got it now? This is not my favourite way of referencing but as Allen noted, it's by no means unusual, and it does have the advantage of providing a more reader-friendly text, which makes this work accessible to a general audience as well as to a scientific one. But there is no question that _The Nurture Assumption_ is meticulously referenced throughout, and to claim that it contains no footnotes or sources is to seriously misrepresent its contents. I'd better deal with this one too. > please let us keep this discussion to the facts at hand as opposed to > the awards she was given and the biggies in the field that support her. > As I've stated before, I feel very sad that we seem to have reverted to > buying into authoritative evidence over empirical evidence. The empirical evidence is amply provided in her book, if you would only read it. It's not my place to re-write it on her behalf, not could I presume to do it even a fraction as well as she has. But especially as her credentials to write such a work are often challenged, including on this list, it seems to me it's absolutely appropriate for me to point out that her work has been accorded great respect in scientific circles, including publication in one of the finest of psychological journals, has been awarded one of the most prestigious prizes in psychology, and has been endorsed by some of the most eminent of academic psychologists. I suspect that's because the people involved actually read what she had to say. Stephen ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Emeritus Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2600 College St. Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Subscribe to discussion list (TIPS) for the teaching of psychology at http://flightline.highline.edu/sfrantz/tips/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
