…but it is highly likely that a combination of genetic factors (studies of identical twins reveal that if one identical twin is homosexual, the likelihood that the other will be is greater than the incidence of homosexuality in the population as a whole) and prental and other biological factors cause homosexuality. See the excellent discussion in “Biology and Sexual Orientation,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
This is a revealing example of what passes for scholarship among those who ought to know better. Richard Posner graduated first in his class from Harvard Law School.
He was also president of the Harvard Law Review. (Admittedly, that’s lost some of its luster given Obama’s resume, but unlike Posner, Obama was the beneficiary of affirmative action.)
Posner is clearly a brilliant, erudite man. So why does he rely on Wikipedia for scientific information regarding homosexuality? What kind of scholarship is that?
To begin with, this is the sort of issue where we might well expect a political agenda to skew the Wikipedia entry.
In addition, although Wikipedia can sometimes be useful for ready reference, you’d hardly turn to it for technical scientific analysis.
My best guess is that, given the intellectual circles that Posner travels in, homosexual marriage is the default assumption. Therefore, it doesn’t even occur to him to do any real research on the subject.
Doesn't your criticism amount to the genetic fallacy? Why should information be discounted simply because it appears on Wikipedia? Shouldn't you read the post he refers to and judge it on its own merits?
ReplyDeleteIf you were qualified to judge the scientific merits (or lack thereof) of the Wikipedia entry on your own, you wouldn't need to consult Wikipedia in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe genetic fallacy doesn't mean the source is ipso facto irrelevant to the veracity of the claim. Rather, the genetic fallacy is only fallacious *if* the source is irrelevant. But there are cases where the source *is* relevant.
It alarms me that some physicians use Wikipedia (WP) to research drugs that they prescribe.
ReplyDeleteEverything I read indicates that given WP's overuse of the word "edit" as an active link they are still comparable in accuracy to expert sources albeit a bit more poorly written. I wouldn't use WP as a source, but sources are listed in WP that are useful. So if anything WP is good as a clearinghouse for sources.