[lbo-talk] judge rules against ward churchill

[ravi]

On Jul 9, 2009, at 12:05 AM, Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> And Gould had his own monsterous deficits, especially in the molecular
> and physiological realm. He was a very old fashioned evolutionist. We
> loved him, but we, my (his) generation, worried about his deep
> relevance to current work. Nevertheless, I wish he were still with us
> as the whole gendre migrates into the molecular realm.
>
> Linguistics and anthropology is not prepared to argue with the
> biochemistry of molecular genetics....and it is essentcial that we (us
> radical theorists) need to be ready, willing and able.
>

I agree that Gould had his deficits, but I disagree with your  
characterisation above. This issue, a long, long time ago, was no  
doubt true, but at this point, I would say that the problem is that a  
lot of popularisation of genetics/biochemistry/neuroscience/etc rests  
on a dismissal of higher-level descriptions and analysis.  
Practitioners within the latter industry do not wish so much to engage  
with the former but to dismiss them as outmoded or irrelevant or  
imprecise.

	--ravi