"You know it to be true" does not, in my discipline, constitute "evidence"
or even a "cite."

When you analyze the data (including the experimental design, which
determines how the data are collected) and are honest about the inferences
that follow from the analysis, many times you see results quite different
from what the authors suggest.

Examples abound. You must be jsut as critical in your reading of peer
reviewed work as you are in your reading of Time, Newsweek, etc.

Studies of the inheritability of traits and eugenics have been notoriously
flawed in hte past; including the recent past.

(Interesting suggestion, Gord, that society or even biology would "benefit"
from less monogamy! Perhaps a return to our idyllic Neolithic past? No?
How about the peaceful Nirvana of the North American continent aboriginal
societies of the 1600s?)

Steve Swartz


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Leslie Swartz" wrote:

Excellent. Let's pattern our behaviors after "Chimps and the like."

Now there's a solution.

We could do worse...matter of fact we 'are' doing worse!...


Steve Swartz

(p.s. "damaging our gene pool by the idea of monogamy!?" Yes, I can see
where some of my colleagues in the "social and like sciences" [sic] would
wish that to be true; however, I would like the cite so's I can evaluate
the
study results myself . . .)


"Wish it to be true"?...you 'know' it to be true Steve...
--

-Gord.