posted by dennisn on November 5th, 2007 at 10:51AM
I sortof agree -- insofar as anybody who comes into contact with a child is a potential teacher for the child, yes, we are all responsible for the nurturing of the children we meet. However, the older the child gets, the less likely this is the case; the student evolves into a teacher. So, although society be blamed for "affecting a parent's means to foster", as you say, (since that would imply that the adult/parent is blaming society for his nature), it can be blamed more directly for the influences it exerts on the child.
(P.S. -- "all stats aside" isn't a good way to start an argument ;] -- it suggests an unwillingness to accept objective measurements)
(P.S. -- "all stats aside" isn't a good way to start an argument ;] -- it suggests an unwillingness to accept objective measurements)
|
posted by Nylorac on November 5th, 2007 at 3:09PM
Well, I meant to suggest an unwillingness to grant a causal relationship between 2 factors just because some stats "showed" there to be some correlation, or no correlation. I don't think stats are that objective. I'd need to know more about the selection process in place before judging the epistemic value of some putative "evidence".
|
