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...
Gene, you write in regards to Rothbard's theory of children: "In this instance, I personally believe that Hymowitz has hit the mark, and that Rothbard’s position was mistaken." Have you spelled out your critique of Rothbard anywhere? If you haven't, would you do it now? In the comment section? With footnotes? And multimedia?
ReplyDeleteWell, he goes about doing politics in an absurd fashion, trying to generate all political life from first principles. And so he winds up with ridiculous conclusions like this one. See Michael Oakeshott's essay, "Rationalism in Politics," for a more complete analysis of this style of politics.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to our game world, knight gold , knight noah , knight online gold , knight online noah and cheap knight gold , they are very interesting.
ReplyDelete