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...
How does it feel to be so much older than the other project leaders?
ReplyDeleteI will ask the guy on the left what he thinks about this, and get back to you.
DeleteBut seriously... they are my students. Most teachers are older than their students, so "Unsurprising" might be the best answer.
DeleteOh! Sorry. I thought they were other instructors. My father is 59 and is much older than the people in the shop he works at. I bust his chops for that, so a similar idea was going through my mind here.
Delete