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
Hi Gene,
ReplyDeletethere's a common trope that goes around that philosophy college professors (like those in the philosophy major) are very left wing. Is there any truth to this? Considering Mike, Huemer, an ancap, works at The University of Colorado Boulder( a public university) and Hans Herman Hoppe also works in a public university( University of Nevada, Las Vegas), it seems like the standards for working in Uni philosophy departments are very low and the weirdo's that couldn't get into other departments just congregate in Uni philosophy departments. What are your thoughts?