Going straight to the man was enterprising but the answer is
less than enlightening.
Larry Farwell replied to Steven Specht:
"Your question is a good one, and it is thoroughly dealt with in
my experimental procedures and scientific writings...blah,
blah....If my approach were anywhere as naive and foolish as the
approach you mistakenly attribute to me in your email, I would
not have gotten 100% accurate results in over 150 cases."
Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see a response to the
question asked, and his paper concerns 3 cases, not 150. But
here's another idea for someone to try that might make him pay
attention. I checked out the Journal of Forensic Sciences, where
his seminal paper is due to be published and they say, under
author instructions:
http://www.astm.org/JOFS/auth_info.rtf
"The Journal of Forensic Sciences publishes original material in
the following categories...
"Letter --- usually a discussion of a previously published item,
or commentary on the Journal or an issue of interest to the
Academy. Publication of letters is at the sole discretion of the
Editor. Letters commenting on previously published items are
ordinarily shared with the original authors to afford them an
opportunity to respond to the commentary."
The claim that the brain is a video camera is just begging to be
trashed.
Anyone care to go for it?
Stephen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470
Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661
Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lennoxville, QC
J1M 1Z7
Canada Department web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy
Check out TIPS listserv for teachers of psychology at:
http://www.frostburg.edu/dept/psyc/southerly/tips/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
