Average is over

By -
I am reviewing Tyler Cowen's above-titled book. As usual, I will be posting some of my thoughts as I read the book on this blog.

And here is the first of them: I am far from being able to yet evaluate Cowen's thesis. But I can say this: Man-oh-man, this guy has mastered the art of writing a book for "the intelligent layperson." When I sat down to start reading tonight, my intention was to deal with the "chore" (because I am writing a review) of reading Cowen for 20 or 30 minutes, and then get back to reading my new mathematics book. It has now been two hours and I have not yet had any desire to put Cowen's book down.



Comments

  1. Bob Murphy11:21 PM

    On the back of the 2nd edition:

    "More interesting than a math book!"--Gene Callahan

    ReplyDelete
  2. scineram5:13 PM

    Which math book are you not reading?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wabulon10:30 PM

    loop.pdf

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 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
Read more