: SDF: No, Gee, if you wish to show that something is a fallacy, you have to show that it's UNTRUE.
Remember that arguments which assume that since something has not been proven false, then it is therefore true is fallacious both ways.
What neither of us has done is shown *why* there would or wouldnt be limits to the influence of 'socialisation'
My argument isnt that I know the limits, but that to proceed from data about mankind being malleable to the conclusion that 'natural law' is false / useless / discountable is incorrect.
As counter I would offer the law of identity and ask "does mankind have a specific non contradictory nature?". In other words I can accept that one tribe is violent and the other not and this be ascribed to 'socialisation', but that does not mean that *any* socialisation can produce results according to inputs. That mans nature, however ill defined, is the cause of this behaviour which is deemed socialisation and which has this very pervasive influence on people as individual entities.
Perhaps our disagreement was not of the nature you has thought.
:(which would certainly explain the demonstrated success educators have had with co-operative learning methods),
Sounds interesting - what are co operative learning methods exactly?