I had commented: > And I'm dearly hoping we won't hear from Joan on this > book too [Harris' second, _No two Alike_]
to which Joan Warmbold replied: > Never fear--I'm getting off this listserv. Best you all and > thanks for the many helpful and useful tips (literally) but I need > to get off as these direct attacks really are hurtful. Well, I do regret tossing off that impulsive one-liner, and I usually regret when someone feels it necessary to leave the list for whatever reason, as I do now. But I think Joan should recognize that she bears some responsibility for her unhappiness on this list. Whatever criticism she feels has been directed at her, although for the most part actually directed at her assertions, is nothing compared to the extravagant and scornful name-calling she launched against Judy Harris, a respected scholar. And more recently, she employed the same technique against another highly talented scientist, Steven Pinker. Our post are publicly-archived, and I am sure would be hurtful were they to come to the attention of the people so maligned. This is what I had in mind in making my offhand remark. I also note that she implied in a recent post that those of us who openly express our views appear to have, thug-like, intimidated others from expressing views similar to her own. On the contrary, I would imagine that these lurkers did not remain quiet because they feared we would mug them. They remained quiet because, while sharing Joan's abhorrence of Harris' conclusions, were unable to refute them by reasoned argument and evidence. Criticism, even when harsh, is an essential part of science. But the criticisms should be made responsibly and backed up convincingly. Joan promised to do this a number of times, but when she finally provided something, it turned out not to substantiate her strongly-worded opinions. Worse, when I examined some of her claims of poor scholarship on the part of Harris, in each case it turned out that Joan was mistaken, and the error in scholarship was hers, not that of Harris. For example, others have already noted that Joan was incorrect in accusing Harris of an error in citing Watson's _Behaviourism_ as published in in 1924, a detail easily checked. I had been planning a post listing the erroneous contentions in Joan's critique, but I can see that there is no longer a need for that now. So Joan, don't go. But perhaps you could be more cautious in dumping on respected scholars, or at least make sure you have the evidence to support your claims against them. 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
