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
Take away his cube root?
ReplyDeleteToss him a copy of Human Action?
ReplyDeleteWave at him.
ReplyDeleteThat's what I thought at first, but by your description I was picturing him sitting on a branch. After all, when I house-sit for someone, I don't hang from the chandelier.
ReplyDeleteEven sitting on a branch, a normal Polish person holds on for safety. Suddenly remove that hold, and he'll probably tip off.
ReplyDeleteHaving no access to Polish persons, I tried this with orangutans, letting them perch in trees and then blowing off an arm with a high-velocity bullet. They all fell off, though some succeeded in catching a lower branch with the remaining arm. When I blew that one off, they invariably fell to the ground, despite efforts to catch hold with their feet.