J. Daniel Hammond wrote:  
  
> Theirs is a worthy effort to recover some of the understanding of human   
> nature that was lost in the nineteenth and twentieth century   
> romance with science.  
  
This is very odd. Does Hammond really wish to imply that due to "science" or the "romance
with science", we know LESS about human nature that we knew before? Has science subtracted
from the total sum of knowledge on human nature?! Has all the effort to partition nature
and nuture by experimental psychology been in vain, or worse? This is hard to believe.
  
Albert Himoe