The Complexity of Greatness: Beyond Talent or Practice by Unknown

Author:Unknown
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9780199794003
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Published: 2013-04-24T00:00:00+00:00

PART II: THE CASE FOR ANTINATS’ SYSTEMATIC FACTUAL MISREPRESENTATIONS

Scientific knowledge grows from the accumulation of new information as well as the confrontation of divergent theories. In the course of debates that can last for many years, both sides present large quantities of facts as evidence or counterevidence. Ideally, members of both camps should read all the research cited by their adversaries; in practice that is rarely feasible. Moreover, no one expects non-specialist readers to have easy access to the cited sources; consequently, they are the ones most at risk from any scholarly misconduct. Protagonists and lay readers usually accept “as is” the citations and quotes presented by either side, confident that proper scholarship will ensure the objectivity of that information. Of course, everyone knows that divergent positions will make for divergent interpretations, but they expect that the facts themselves will be reliably reported, and that researchers will not misrepresent authors’ positions. Without such attention to faithful reporting, the confidence between scientific peers, as well as between authors and readers, would rapidly dissolve.

Where does this introduction lead me? It directly targets the reasons behind the large gap—the chasm—between the two positions discussed in the first part of this chapter. We did not see arguments over shades of gray, but diametrically opposed views. Why has there been no progression over the past two decades toward at least some partial agreement? I will argue that this lack of progress ensues in large part from repetitive Antinat behavior that does not respect the basic scholarly rules described above. This is a very strong judgment about the professional behavior of peers, and it demands adequate supportive evidence. This is why I reserved the second part of this chapter for that demonstration. I will analyze a variety of statements from the two target articles (Ericsson et al., 2007; Howe et al., 1998) mentioned in the introduction to Part I. I am well aware that the title adopted for Part II uses a strong expression, but it conveys precisely my conclusion, namely that both groups of Antinat spokespersons cited above repeatedly resorted to a variety of factual misrepresentations in their analysis of the research literature. I will argue that their misbehavior was in no way impulsive, thoughtless, or unreflecting; it originated in purposeful decisions by their authors. My accusations directly target the researchers who have signed the two Antinat articles mentioned. But they do indirectly include all other Antinat researchers who explicitly endorsed the views of these frontline spokespersons.

I have subdivided this “dissection” of Antinats’ questionable scholarship into two main sections: (a) their selective choice of “acceptable” debating arenas and rejection of “unacceptable” ones and (b) their biased selection of the scientific literature, and corresponding biased analysis and reporting of factual data that contradict their position. Keep in mind that the following discussion summarizes the much more detailed analysis presented in Gagné (2009b).

Selective Choice of Debating Arenas

The selective process adopted by Antinat spokespersons works in two distinct ways: either they exclude phenomena judged relevant by defenders of

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.