> > > 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.
IMO, one of the irritating things about academia is the incredible passion some folks there seem to have for calling each others' work garbage ;-p This is not the case in mathematics (where I started as an academic) but is definitely the case in cog sci; where things are extremely polarized intellectually with researchers dividing into tribes and praising the ideas of members of their own tribe while trashing others' ideas... It's obvious, common, simian behavior, but I do get tired of it... I prefer Ed Porter's attitude, of looking for the interesting nuggets in peoples' work and trying to build understanding out of these nuggets, rather than focusing on the parts of peoples' work we don't think are correct... I add that the prior title of this thread was misleading even according to Loosemore's stated view: Loosemore's argument really seems to be that Granger's work is decent neuroscience but bogus cognitive science... -- Ben ----- 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=56166249-82d0e6
