On 16 March 2008 Joan Warmbold wrote with reference to her mistake about footnotes (endnotes) in *The Nature Assumption*: > I apologize for all of you fans of Harris's work for my > inaccurate contentions about her book.
Re the phrase "all you fans of Harris's work", I'm sure Joan will agree that this is not a matter of whether one agrees or disagrees with Harris's thesis, but of factual accuracy. I quite frequently find myself fuming at misstatements about, or the misrepresentation of, a person's argument by a critic even when I am generally in agreement with the viewpoint of the critic. This also happens to be relevant (in two different ways) to the following statement by Joan: > But both Pinker and Harris boldly state that parents are not important. > Quote from the foreword by Pinker states, "The thesis of The Nurture > Assumption . . .(is) that genes and peers matter, but parent's don't matter. > In the preface by Harris, she quotes from her journal article, "Do parents > have any important long-term effects on the development of their children's > personality? This article examines the evidence and concludes that the > answer is no." First: In relation to Harris, her contention is that parents do not have any "long term effects on the development of their child's personality". Compare this with Joan's assertion in the first sentence quoted above that Harris has "boldly" stated that "parents are not important". (That Joan then quotes accurately what Harris actually contends does not alter the erroneousness of that first sentence in relation to Harris.) Second: In relation to Pinker, regardless of the accuracy or otherwise of Joan's first sentence above, I don't think she should have used ellipses in the sentence of his that she quotes, because the reader has no idea if the omitted words provide more precise information in regard to what characteristics of children "parents don't matter". (I have not infrequently seen the meaning of a quoted passage radically altered by the replacement of a phrase by ellipses.) Sometimes this doesn't matter, as the ellipses relate to words not relevant to the point at issue, but here the structure of the sentence is such that they quite possibly could be relevant. In this instance the omitted words are so imprecise that including them doesn't help: Pinker writes "that in the formation of an adult" genes matter and peers matter, but parents don't matter. What Pinker means by "in the formation of an adult" is anyone's guess. But this takes me back to my very first point above. A second person's statement of someone else's thesis (including, as in this instance, when the second person is a supporter of the thesis), is not necessarily accurate. So the sole issue here should be: Does Harris contend that "parents are not important"? The answer to this is, contrary to what Joan implies above, is "no". Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
