Decaying Things Seen in Brooklyn
Click for larger image.
"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness
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...
Is that grafitti above your head your calling card?
ReplyDelete"grafitto."
ReplyDeletegrafittum
ReplyDeletegrafitti
grafitto
grafittum
grafitto
grafitta
grafittorum
grafittis
grafitta
grafittis
I think I can see a graffito in the first picture AND a graffito in the picture below.
ReplyDeleteThe Quayle book of rulez sayth: grafittoes
grafitto
ReplyDeletegrafittas
grafittat
grafittamus
grafittatis
grafittant
Oh, and Woody is the only one who got the spelling right.
ReplyDeleteWabulon, you seem to be conjugating grafittus, not declining it!
ReplyDeleteI *was* conjugating, since you had already taken care of the declining.
ReplyDeleteGotcha.
ReplyDeleteBTW, I think my nominative singular should have been grafittus.