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
I bet he neglects the upside of the slave trade, too.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the point of your remark, Bob. Certainly, an analysis of the slave trade that implied no one economically benefited from it would be somewhat lacking, wouldn't it? And this inflation arose through 'market forces' -- at least on the European end of things -- as Spanish gold and silver from the New World poured into the European economy. It COULD have been the case that the New World was empty when the Spaniards arrived, and they discovered unhomesteaded gold and silver. The inflation than would be a pure market phenomenon -- and aren't those all benign?
ReplyDelete