Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
Read other letters about this article
We're prejudiced, now what?
Scientists now tell us bias toward others may be innate. But that doesn't mean we have to behave like Bill O'Reilly.
By Robert Burton [2007-10-31]

  • Pure speculation with the word "science"

    "So, given our present state of knowledge, fMRI activation of the amygdala should not be taken as unequivocal evidence that the fear and anxiety are the primary unconscious responses to racial or ethnic differences; the activation could represent a nonspecific state of heightened emotional arousal."

    Translation: I'm not a sceintist, these studies don't yet prove anything, so everything which follows is my own speculative opinion based on my unprofessional bullshit assessment.

    I loathe this sort of lame-ass, irresponsible non-scientist bloviation which doesn't ask all the vital questions: What were the exact conditions and conclusions? How rigorous was the studies? What do other conflicting studies say? What do other nueroscientists say?

    Because the last time I checked, neuroscience is still ambiguous about a great many thought processes, especially ones which involve multiple and conflicting instinctual reactions. All this does is pander to those seeking to wrap their own bullshit up in "science!"

    Way to go with another example of Fox News style journalism, Salon. What's next? A "rape is part of nature" article?

    -- softdog
    [Read softdog's other letters]
    Wednesday, October 31, 2007 05:37 AM
Read other letters about this article

Letters Help