Edward W. Porter wrote:
As Ben suggests, clearly Granger’s title claims to much. At best the
article suggests what may be some important aspects of the computational
architecture of the human brain, not anything approaching a complete
instruction set.
But as I implied in my last post to Richard Loosemore, you have to
forgive academics for aggressive marketing, because “publish or perish”
seems to have replaced by “market or perish.”
But in my time as a cognitive scientist, I have had to read through
hundreds (perhaps thousands) of papers in which the author(s) made wild
claims that really amounted to nothing more than aggressive marketing
designed to further their career. I have had large chunks of my time
wasted by this self-aggrandisement.
It took me at least five years of struggle to get to the point where I
could start to have the confidence to call a spade a spade, and dismiss
stuff that looked like rubbish.
Now, you say "we have to forgive academics" for doing this? The hell we do.
If I see garbage being peddled as if it were science, I will call it
garbage.
Richard Loosemore.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=56164584-2783ce
