I'm not getting in on the substance of this issue (assuming a substantive debate is on the offing on the Nurture Assumption) but I do want to say that it is comparing apples and envelopes to compare a published work (Harris' book) to a critique (Joan's) that was requested and hurriedly produced in the middle of a semester of teaching obligations for the purposes of furthering discussion on an e-mail list. If you want to disagree with Joan's arguments, focus on the arguments. I don't have any problem with understanding the communicative intent of any of the quotes below although context would help in some cases.
What with ripping Joan's critique on grammatical grounds and engaging in serious debate about a parody of someone's work, what's next? Critiquing the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/index) for its editorial content, factual reporting lapses and writing style? Rick Dr. Rick Froman, Chair Division of Humanities and Social Sciences Box 3055 x7295 [email protected] http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman Proverbs 14:15 "A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his steps." -----Original Message----- From: David Epstein [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:11 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Critique of Harris's book: The Nurture Assumption 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]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
