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...
Good afternoon, Dr. C.
ReplyDeleteAre you done with Aquinas? I was looking forward to your liveblog. I have the book, but have not made much progress on it.
anti, I sure haven't. The problem is that the five books you see above are all work reading: I'm teaching from that macro textbook, reviewing Madison and Jefferson, using Pareto and Smith in my current research project, and I've just pledged myself to study Italian each day until I've mastered it.
ReplyDeleteSo I have had to put Aquinas down for the moment.
Slacker. :)
Delete