Re: Video - Moriarty, villain or white knight?
I am grateful for the time you have taken in responding to
my video, particularly when you have such a busy schedule, having watched your
appearance on the MSS, I now understand why you took issue with the title of
that video, I can only apologise, it was not intended as a pejorative, but I
have to admit was a thoughtless strap line and I understand why you took issue
with it.
So I would like to address the points you raised in the
order that they were made.
1). My video was made in response to Dr Winters who referred
her viewers to your article, your post she suggested, supported her position in
relation to dimorphism, my response was intended as a review of the article, as
it was presented, in that post you quoted Dr Mason, in my video I addressed
that quotation, which I assumed you considered a fair and appropriate
representation of his view. My position was that Dr Mason uses the Olympics as
an analogy, in order to contrast physical dimorphism between male and female, and it was dimorphism that might explain the
imbalance in sex representation, this is not stated explicitly in the quotation
you cite in your article, my argument relating to his position rests heavily,
on inference drawn from that quotation, “I don’t think” is not an assertion, it
is a guarded term, I make no apology for the use of such terms, it certainly
does not make my argument weaker.
2). Your second point is rather lengthy, so I will try to
address the main themes as comprehensively as I can, humans are not a highly
dimorphic species, but humans are undeniably sexually-differentiated, I don’t
think you take a contrary position in this, unlike Dr Winters who seems to view
Science through a peculiar ideological lens. Dimorphism is a scientific fact,
as certain and as well confirmed as evolution and sexual selection, both are
fundamental to evolutionary biology, and sexual dimorphism is a predictable and
confirmed consequence of these natural processes, in your appearance on the MSS
you seem to acknowledge this, although this acknowledgement was not verbalised,
but you did baulk at the suggestion that dimorphism extended “above the neck”, in
effect you appear to deny dimorphism any explanatory power in matters related
to sex differences in trait or abilities, “where’s your evidence!”, was the
immediate retort.
In your response above, you state that “the *influence* of
sexual dimorphism on abilities and attributes is an extremely weak effect in
many cases”, which seems to imply, that the influence in “some” cases you
consider not so weak? This suggests that
there is inconsistency in your view, and this makes me uncertain in relation to
your exact position, are you suggesting that some differences in abilities are
weak and that other differences are measurable? Or is it the case that you
believe dimorphism has no bearing on trait differences between sexes? Or there
are no differences at all?
The review article referenced in your post, is I assume, the
link to Joel et al. in one of the seventeen comments at PubPeer, which you
claimed critiqued at length the first paper cited in your post, these criticism
have already been addressed by the authors of the first study, it may be
interesting for the reader to know what they had to say in relation to the
criticisms of their work by Joel:
“We regret that the critique seems intended to misrepresent
our scientific findings.”
The question of nature, nurture and environment is a fair
point, the human condition is a product of all these (and genetics) but it is
only a matter of degree, as Bishop Berkeley said:
“We have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot
see."
You make a request in your post, “show me a study where the
influence of societal factors has been credibly normalised”, firstly we have to
mindful of what one means by societal, society and culture are often used interchangeably,
but each is distinct, cultural influences can be minimised by cross cultural
studies, they can be eliminated by comparative studies, an example of a paper
that attempts to minimise cultural differences, might be “Gender differences in
personality traits across cultures” it collected data from 26 countries 23000
subjects, socialisation can be eliminated by observation of infants, before
they reach the cognitive stage where socialisation becomes a possibility, we
can also observe our cousins in the animal kingdom, toy preference has been
observed and documented in primates, there are many strategies that might be
employed, but you might like to consider this: are sex differences a product of
society, or is society a product of sex differences?
From nematode to bonobo, evolutionary biology is resplendent
with studies which indicate, that within sexually differentiated species, sexes
have distinct biological imperatives, when you presented the two studies in
your article, I suspect that it was because the first, you believed was
adequately rebutted, and the other supported your position, in this, you are
mistaken, the first paper is representative, the second is not, presenting the
argument in this way, gives the reader the impression that each should be given
equal weight, but this is simply wrong.
There will be no one single unequivocal study that settles
this issue, but the amassed evidence points in only one direction, as unsatisfactory
as this may seem to a physicist its just the way biology proceeds, I could
allow you the point completely relating to the findings in MRI studies, and
simply put on the table the observations, made over many years, post mortem, then
we have the cross cultural studies, comparative studies, clinical studies,
neurological studies, the evidence professor, is overwhelming and far more
robust than you suggest, I fail to see how you can accuse Dr Mason of not
producing evidence in support of his position, when you have already produced
documentation that in part, contains the evidence you demand, I know you do not
like the direction that such studies take, you may well contest and argue
against the conclusions contained therein, but surely you cannot deny the
existence of the evidence itself.
“Note that I am not suggesting, nor do I suggest in the blog
post, that the differences are definitively "nurture-derived". I
don't have the evidence to do that. However, Mason *is* arguing that the
driving force is dominated by genetic dimorphism and he discounts environmental
influences.”
I’m sure you will be happy to know that in this regard, I
believe you both to be wrong, we are a product of both and many other factors, genetic
inheritance being one contributory factor, so lets throw that into the cake mix
as well.
3). Fallacy, fallacy, just an observation professor, I’ve
noticed an increasing tendency in some parts of the you tube community to seek
out fallacies in arguments then present them to the author as if they were
delivering some kind of logical coup de grace, I’m not suggesting that this is
what you were doing, but (and there’s always a but), if one does feel compelled
to point these things out, it is best practice, not to commit the exact same
fallacy in the next paragraph, only saying…
4). Yes, I guessed that was what you had in mind, its
perfectly valid rhetorical device in debate, and poking ones protagonist is not
without its pleasures, particularly if you suspect they might find it irksome, drawing
attention to such strategies is equally irritating, interesting isn’t it, the
games we play?
Now, having said all that, in regards to your point on
misrepresentation, I can understand why you might think that is the case, but
the reality of the matter is, that I have not misrepresented in any way. What
you the author consider key and what I the reader consider important, may well
differ. The points I considered important were I hope, a fair reflection of
specific views, contained within the post, they were not paraphrased, but I
suspect that what you take issue with, is the omission of some of your points,
and what you consider an unfair selection of other points that when taken as a
whole, might be considered a general misrepresentation of your position.
I had skipped several points raised in your post, the reason
for this is, that your reference to MRI Artifacting for instance, which you
suggested as an effective rebuttal relating to the first paper cited, did not
seem convincing, and the explanation would have been lengthy and generally
unedifying for most viewers, of course such things cannot be discounted, and
there may be Artifacting that goes undetected, but would that be significant
over many studies, presumably using different machines, and several locations, you
must be aware Professor, that such Artifacting is hardly an unknown issue in
radiography, most are eliminated by calibration, others by patient preparation,
and the most problematic, corrected by the skill and experience of the radiographers
responsible for imaging, these highly skilled people are cognisant of the
potential for false or obfuscated pathologies, and are capable of delivering images used for clinical
diagnosis, good enough for government work I think, And certainly well beyond
the critique of antagonised sociologists. The link to PubPeer and the comments
relating to the first paper have been dealt with above.
It is still my position that Dr Mason is essentially
correct, although he has pushed the analogy past breaking point, there is a
large body of scientific evidence that would support his position, regardless
of how one might view such studies, and if at least this much is admitted, then
the accusation of being unscientific cannot stand, there are sound reasons, for
concluding that dimorphism influences traits, including cognitive traits, the
same forces that drive sexual dimorphism in peafowl and sea lions, have
operated and continue to operate on humans, the denial of this, exposes one's underlying
agenda, which is, it seems to me, political in nature.
Cheers,
ShinobiYaka.
No comments:
Post a Comment