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 hope you yelled at the poorly worded sign.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI, in fact, whispered into the return slot.
ReplyDeleteI admit, I lol'd at this :-)
ReplyDeleteGene Callahan, the "Don Juan" of library signage.
ReplyDeleteGot ya, Silas!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I was sitting at the computer last night, apparently muttering. My youngest son said to my wife, "Mom, is he arguing with Silas again?"
ReplyDeleteSwear to God.
Have you ever thought one thing but said the opposite? I know I have. (at exactly 4:44 yesterday)
ReplyDelete