Much of the critique seems concerned with the informality of Harris's tone, yet the critique itself is written in an almost stream-of-consciousness style that frequently becomes incomprehensible. I found these non-sentences particularly arresting:
"Relative to the style of her citations, as they are listed in the appendix by chapter, they rarely provide the title of the article or book but, instead, provide the relevant theme of the source material followed by the author, date and sometimes, the page number." "(Why the use of quotes other then reinforcing her rather odd analogy/)" "What follows totally confuses me as isn't this an excellent example of observation and imitation?" "The relevance of this escapes me as well as how Harris reinterprets this example to demonstrate that children don't imitate their parents as read what follows!" "So here we have an example of Harris both providing a partial quote, one that does allow for a more general interpretation, and then proceeds to tell us what he 'said' and what he meant to say." "This pervasive pattern of anti-behaviorist to only use Watson as their source for what behaviorism is all about without making any attempt to keep up with the science of behaviorism is quite unfortunate." Harris's writing is often informal, but always exceedingly lucid. --David Epstein [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
