At 15:54 22/06/2007 +0100, Paul Spicker wrote:
>Perhaps more important, however, is to engage with the arguments.
>The problem with Lind is not that he's insufficiently cited; it's
>that he's talking codswallop.
If you don't agree with Lind's take on the history of political
correctness, fair enough, but rather than simply criticize it, you
need to replace it with a better hypothesis. Of course he's not well
cited - he's not politically correct! :-)
If you don't think that political correctness compromises science and
free speech, you are mistaken.
Martin
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|