Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!peregrine!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!cornell!oravax!daryl
From: daryl@oravax.UUCP (Steven Daryl McCullough)
Newsgroups: sci.bio
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Summary: Why does being on the wrong side of a nature/nurture debate
	 make one stupid?
Message-ID: <1821@oravax.UUCP>
Date: 5 Dec 90 18:53:08 GMT
References: <6091@crash.cts.com> <660405383@lear.cs.duke.edu> <10800@ur-cc.UUCP>
Organization: Odyssey Research Associates, Ithaca NY
Lines: 29

In article <10800@ur-cc.UUCP>, fa1cs250@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Travis Low) writes:
>    Here is my interpretation of Bob Forsythe's sentence:
>    "It is just as stupid to suggest that handedness is learned as
>    it is to suggest that sexual preferences are learned."
> 
>    Or, if you prefer:
>    "It is just as stupid to suggest that handedness is learned as
>    it is to suggest that smiling is learned."
> 
>    Now, the generic version:
>    "It is just as stupid to suggest that handedness is learned as
>    it is to suggest that {insert favorite innate behavior here}."
> 
>    Finally, the short version:
>    "Suggesting that handedness is learned is dumb."

This explanation (especially the short version) doesn't make sense.
Why is it dumb to assert that smiling, or sexual preference, or
handedness is learned? It may be incorrect, but why is it dumb? Is
there some simple and foolproof way to know which behaviors are innate
and which are learned?

In my opinion, it is not cool to argue for the truth of an empirical
statement (such as the innateness of handedness or sexual preference)
by casting doubt on the intelligence of those who are unconvinced.
Bob's statement amounted to argument by insult, and I think he
deserved to be called on it.

Daryl McCullough