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 got tricked! There's nothing here. Oh...I get it...we're supposed to suggest a must read post. Well...in that case...here's my suggestion...A Must Read Post.
ReplyDeleteSorry, works now.
DeleteHmmm...for some reason I still feel tricked. When you clicked on my link did you feel tricked?
DeleteNo, why would I have?
DeleteI don't know? Maybe you felt like I was using your comments section to promote tax choice?
DeleteOK by me.
DeleteIf you ever get a chance, and have any interest in the tax choice concept, it would be pretty darn great if you were to write up a critique of the concept. :D
DeleteWhat, no "the page at the following link is false" shenanigans?
ReplyDelete