Re: [Pen-l] Jared Diamond and the New Yorker, part 2

[raghu <mraghu01@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 1:18 PM, Carrol Cox <cbcox@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> To return to Lou's original post. Assuming the accuracy of chargaes
> against Diamond made there, a legitimate digression was possible into a
> discussion of either the misuses of science or of one parrticular
> tendency (reductionism) within _some_ scientific currents or in the use
> of science by non-scientists. But ravi chose to make the ridiculous
> claim (ridiculous even if correct, since non-demmonstrable except by
> telepathy) that Diamon's purpose was cementing his status among
> intellectuals:



I don't see where Ravi made that claim about Diamond or about anyone else.

What I got out of Ravi's original reply is simply this: Diamond's
simplistic theories about blood-feuds among PNG tribes, with its
scientific pretensions etc, has the same kind of attraction to mass
audiences as other kinds of seemingly plausible pseudo-sciences such
as Summer's theory about women's math skills, Milton Friedman's ideas
about self-interest, Watson's theories about Africans etc.

Also, I didn't realize that it is a violation of some human rights to
"hijack a thread" and digress into another topic. Isn't that the whole
point of a forum like PEN-L - to have free-flowing debate?
-raghu.


--
"I bought some batteries, but they weren't included."
 - Steven Wright
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l