> I wrote > > In my copy [of The Nurture Assumption], Harris lists 391 footnotes > > referencing her arguments,...
And Allen Esterson replied: > On a purely factual matter, the number 391 at the end of the endnote > section (p. 418) is not the number of the endnote but the page number > to > which the relevant note refers. There are actually around 700 > endnotes. > (For some pages of the text there are more than one separate > endnotes.) Allen's right (Gad, how I hate having to say that). After carefully explaining the matter to warm and bold Joan, I forgot and confused the page number 391 with the number of endnotes. I estimate that there must be between 600 and 700 different endnotes (too weary to count 'em all) and around 700 specific citations to the literature, the vast majority of which are to peer-reviewed scientific publications. This impressive number makes Joan's claim, aided and abetted by Paul Brandon, that Harris fails to document her sources and relied on anecdotes outrageous. If you want to trash a work, fine, but do it on the basis of what the author has actually written. To do otherwise is intellectually dishonest. 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])
