Consider the major "argument" in
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/books/review/letters-a-troublesome-inheritance.html?_r=0 The argument therein is signed by 100 experts and consists of
"there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s
conjectures” The bulk of Wade's book however is not conjecture but
reporting the results of recent genetic studies. Wade is after all a
scientific reporter. There are places in Wade's book when he does
"conjecture." In those places he admits that he is going beyond current
science. Thus to say that there is no support from the field of
population genetics for Wade's conjectures is a mere repetition of what
Wade has written. If on the other hand there is an intended implication
that Wades scientific reporting also has no support, that strikes me as
irresponsible and causes me to suspect that those involved in such a
sweeping statement haven't read Wade's book.
.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment