Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Forgot Your Password?
Banner
Can Professors Say The Truth? (Roughgarden Replies)
By Seth Roberts | August 31st 2007 09:29 AM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Seth Roberts articles

All

About Seth Roberts

I am a professor of psychology at UC Berkeley and author of ... Full Bio

Joan Roughgarden has responded to my comment about her recent KQED radio appearance. Her response includes this:


Today, in 2007 only a few, like Roberts, still take Bailey’s work seriously.


In 2006, Bailey’s work was featured on 60 Minutes in a piece titled “The Science of Sexual Orientation.” After the piece aired, a blogger criticized Bailey. Shari Finkelstein,the producer, responded:


His work is highly regarded by all of the researchers in the field who we spoke with.


What a difference a year makes, if Roughgarden is correct.


Comments

Hank's picture
I'd never heard of this issue before your article ( thus, thanks ) and I was really interested so I am glad prof Roughgarden decided to lay things out from another angle.

I am not sure how much you are even disagreeing. You seemed to be initially talking about persecution of a professor for an unpopular position while she doesn't think his science is all that great - tangential but not really in opposition.

But do any of us really think a TV producer's opinion carries weight on a science site???? :-) Heck, I am a nobody academically and even I have more credibility than a TV producer!

I hope.

Hank Campbell | 08/31/07 | 10:35 AM
Seth Roberts's picture

To have one's work featured on 60 Minutes is to be taken seriously by many people.

The producer did not say she thinks highly of Bailey's work -- that would be an opinion. She described what other scientists in Bailey's field said about him. She reported their opinions.


Seth Roberts | 08/31/07 | 10:47 AM
Hank's picture
There's no question 60 Minutes does its research. I also invited Dr. Bailey to come and discuss this so hopefully he will.

I think it's an important topic - there's a cultural divide and that may never be bridged but I think the science aspects are interesting and a lot of other people do also.

Hank Campbell | 08/31/07 | 12:35 PM
jokestress's picture
See Kinder, gentler homophobia for a more representative response to the 60 Minutes. After the CBS segment ran, local gay newspaper Chicago Free Press stated on August 9 ("Bad Science") they would no longer accept ads seeking subjects (convenience sampling, anyone?) for Bailey's "science." See the Council for Responsible Genetics for more criticism of Bailey's work, or read section two of American Eugenics for a detailed criticism of Bailey's work in a historical context. Seth was one of the first people to write a shill review for Bailey's book on Amazon at Bailey's request in May 2003, breathlessly proclaiming "Bailey deserves a Nobel Prize in Literature." Puh-lease. These guys throw the word "truth" around like religious zealots, not scientists. Seth should lay off the hyperbole and countless attempts at resurrecting Bailey's nonsense and get back to his empirical onanism. Book reviews and objectivity are obviously not where his talents lie.
Andrea James | 08/31/07 | 10:53 AM
Seth Roberts's picture
My amazon.com comment was "If How The Mind Works deserves to be a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize then Bailey deserves a Nobel Prize in Literature."

Seth Roberts | 08/31/07 | 10:58 AM

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.