So I wrote a reponse to the Times Online article on the effects of religion that I briefly ranted about in this post a couple of days ago. My article is more aimed against Gregory S. Paul's methodology than on the Times Online article itself, and there's also a whole lot of personal ranting somewhere toward the middle/end.
I sent it as a "hey, I wrote something, whaddaya think?" e-mail to my professor. He looked at it, liked it, and now it's published!
*squees*
Here it is -->
We Are the Others
"The generalizations used in the new 'Religion is bad for society' study are a step backwards for social science."
It's probably the most polemic published piece I've written to date. I realize that my own arguments are incomplete (thus problematic in their own way), but I'm happy for what thread of argument that remains after I cut 20% of what I initially wrote.
( On a different note, my kiddies... )
.
I sent it as a "hey, I wrote something, whaddaya think?" e-mail to my professor. He looked at it, liked it, and now it's published!
*squees*
Here it is -->
We Are the Others
"The generalizations used in the new 'Religion is bad for society' study are a step backwards for social science."
It's probably the most polemic published piece I've written to date. I realize that my own arguments are incomplete (thus problematic in their own way), but I'm happy for what thread of argument that remains after I cut 20% of what I initially wrote.
( On a different note, my kiddies... )
.