I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
It gets better. It now looks as though the police have deliberately erased the CCTV tapes.
ReplyDeleteThe story doesn't jive with the eye witness accounts.
ReplyDeleteWhat is "the story" that doesn't "jive" with eyewitness accounts?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, it hardly matters -- eyewitnesses are very poor at reporting events like this. For instance, in this example, eyewitnesses agreed that the man was wearing "a heavy coat." But the police had footage showing him lying on the floor of the tube wearing a light denim jacket. And they didn't mention it!