William: The risks of argument by authority apply to any authority any of us
might adduce (including Hauser).
I am far from familiar with all recent publications in clinical psychology.
I certainly make no attempt to keep current in neuropsychology. Chances are
good that you and others may find books and authors of which/whom I'm not
aware.
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
So, you mention the oft ridiculed Linus Pauling as one who erred in making
a suggestion about vitamin C. Am I to infer from that that all people who
comment outside their main area of exterpise are or will err? Any
freshman in logic class will see the error of that: A particular premise
is no basis for a universal conclusion.
As I mentioned, the recent book on neuroarthistory was one I had simply
scanned in a colleagues office, It did not look as though it went further
than anything I'd already seen. I have not read the book. I can't recall
the author's name but you can find it I am certain on Wickipedia, the new
gossip enclyclopedia. But Marc Hauser is closer to your field so I
suppose you know his work. He seems to argue that valuing is innate to
consciousness. Like some of the other specialists I've referred to,
including those you've apparently not heard of, he advances his thesis and
opens new lines of inquiry.
WC
WC
--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Geoff <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Geoff <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
To: [email protected]
Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 6:15 PM
William: I've not been keeping up with the publications
of Yale Press. No
doubt the unnamed book to which you refer is authoritative
and responsible.
I just haven't heard of it till your post.
Of course, Linus Pauling, a major luminary in one area of
science,
recommended consumption of large quantitites of vitamin C
as an aid to
health. Most sources I've checked have debunked that
claim. He still knew a
lot about his own area. Relevance: Just because it comes
from a scientist
isn't proof of validity.
Still, I wish I knew more of the book to which you refer.
Good for you for
keeping up so well with what's being published.
Geoff C
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Conger"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
> Why?
>
> If Cheerskep thinks neuroaesthetics is awful, he
should look at the recent
> book published by Yale press on neuroarthistory.
I've only glanced at the
> book myself. Wickipedia is not one of my sources as it
has become for
> others here. Books I've actually read I sometimes
recommend to the list
> when the discourse seems relevant. Is it my job to
outline the details of
> each of those books? And is it my job to prove the
ideas of the authors?
> And is it my job to exceed their theses? After all,
it's a little more
> challenging to investigate idea than it is to deny it
outright -- or to
> say someone is too dumb to consider.
>
> Yep, the world is becoming lopsided with books of all
sorts. Maybe we
> should stick to the Bible to be sure we don't read
dumb stuff. No
> neuroscience there. Just good old dictums.
>
> WC
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 12/20/08, [email protected]
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
>> Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
>> To: [email protected]
>> Date: Saturday, December 20, 2008, 1:09 PM
>> In a message dated 12/20/08 12:46:55 PM,
>> [email protected] writes:
>>
>>
>> > Luc to Geoff:
>> > Where have you been in the last 20 years?
>> >
>> And where you have you been for the last month?
The
>> neurology that has been
>> championed on the forum has been based on the
assumption
>> that examining brain
>> tissue material will yield useful and enlightening
things
>> about the creation
>> and appreciation of "art". (And about
how
>> "consciousness" -- which some of us
>> persist in considering a non-material entity --
can
>> "arise from" that neural
>> tissue.)
>>
>> Geoff and I have posted extensive messages
detailing why we
>> say we haven't
>> seen evidence of neurology's having achieved
anything
>> like this. (E.g. my
>> posting on Zeki.) Either you haven't read
those
>> postings, or you've read them with
>> nothing like what I'd call
"understanding".
>>
>> But what really has moved me to write this posting
is your
>> tone toward Geoff.
>> It is a combination of sarcasm and condescension
that is
>> particularly odious
>> when it comes from one who clearly lacks worthy
mental
>> acuity and yet who
>> smugly believes he has it..
>>
>>
>> **************
>> One site keeps you connected to all
>> your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try
it now.
>>
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
