Tom bartlett chronicle

Running Head: EVALUATION OF SOURCES FOR NATURE VERSUS NURTURE 1

EVALUATION OF SOURCES FOR NATURE VERSUS NURTURE 7

Evaluation of Sources for Nature Versus Nurture

Hazel M Morrow

South University Online

Evaluation of Sources for Nature Versus Nurture

It is a long standing debate, nature versus nurture, genetics versus environment. It has flowed back and forth over the years as scientific advances bring new information to the populace. The idea that people are a product of their environment, V of how they were raised has been around for a long time. However, even back before the study of genetics, people would say things like, “It’s just how he is” or “She’s always been that way, even though her parents are good [insert religious affiliation here] folks.” These signs of possible non-environmental behaviors have been around for a long time, delete comma as well. This is an issue that has been extensively researched. It has been looked at through the eyes of professionals in fields such as gender-related studies, various disease-related research studies, psychology, genetics, and even robotics. Because of this, there is a lot of potential source material no matter which side of the debate you decide to investigate. This makes it especially difficult, but even more necessary, to verify the validity of sources.

In the first article I examined, “Nature vs. Nurture: Emerging Science of Epigenetics Takes Us to the Crossroads to Explain What Causes Disease” from the Canada NewsWire, the author is anonymous. This is not uncommon in internet, or even news, sources. However, once I started reading through the article, the credibility of it increased. The article uses Dr. Arturas Petronis of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) as the primary source. The information and the accuracy of the article seem to be solid. The article was written in 2010. While new information may have emerged since then, nothing has emerged to invalidate the information presented in the article since then. This article is a good credible source for information. What is the original location of the source? Is it credible? If you don’t have an author, you have to look at the organization or publication.

The next article I looked over was called “Goodbye Nature vs. Nurture Debate” from the publication New Scientist. The author of the article is Evelyn Fox Keller, an associate professor in Arizona. I figured this was an extremely credible source. I found the original article, “The Sound of Distant Drumming”. It is in the section of the periodical called, “The Big Idea” which is an opinion section. This lowered the credibly of the source greatly for me. Then I learned that Evelyn Fox Keller is an associate professor of history and philosophy of science. She is not an expert in the field of genetics, behavioral studies or even psychology. Better check her background before you make this conclusion/she was trained as a physicist originally This lowered the credibility of the article even more. The information seems to be accurate. The article contains a lot of good general information. It was also published in 2010, so again timeliness might mean more information has emerged, but not necessarily negated the information contained within the article. Because of the author and its focus as an opinion piece, however, I would use it as a source only with other sources backing up the same information. Opinion in and of itself is not a reason to doubt the credibility of a source. Evaluate the information used to support the opinion.

The article “Pediatrics; beyond nature vs. nurture: Parental guidance boosts child's strengths, shapes development” again has an anonymous or unknown author. It is in the respected psychology periodical Psychology & Psychiatry Journal which raises its credibility greatly. Who respects the journal? How do you know? The information that it contains is general, but focused on child rearing. The information seem to be accurate. The year 2010 is apparently the go-to year for this subject because that is when this article is also published. The same holds true for this as the previous articles in regards to timeliness. It appears to be a very good credible source.