I've deleted most of this conversation unread due to lack of time, so
I'll respond on a different thread that Steve Kudlak brough up:
> ...I have always wondered why supposed person x
> is a charlitan, or person y is a charitan. What did they say or do to
> get themselves declared so. Will someone explain. No one seems to be
> able to do so. So it is just a personal attak and should be dismissed,
> until someone comes up with a real one. And it really doesn't matter
> if "x" is the latest academic fad or not....
In my never very humble opinion, anyone who writes for the popular
audience (Gould and Sagan are examples) gets dismissed in the academy.
One problem lies in the necessary simplification of popular writing
which can drive experts in the field crazy. I can only think of the
French quote about translations of literature: "If it is beautiful it
is not true, and if it is true it is not beautiful."
Sagan's science, I'm told by an astronomer friend, was solid enough to
get him elected to the National Academy by his scientific peers. If I
recall the story correctly he was turned down by the general membership,
which usually rubber-stamps people chosen by people in their field.
Perhaps, in their minds, scientific peers substitute the prose written
for the lay public for the quite academic work the same author produces.
Imagine the response of a contemplative monastic to a fellow monk who
decided to become a TV preacher one day a month.
Peg.
M. S. AtKisson
Department of Neuroscience
Tufts University
===================================================================
WEB SITE: http://pks.bu.edu/awbim
POST MESSAGE: Send a message to artwithbraininmind-l@pks.bu.edu
(UN)SUBSCRIBE: Send message to majordomo@pks.bu.edu with
'subscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body to subscribe, or
'unsubscribe artwithbraininmind-l' in body to unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Sep 06 2008 - 04:03:08 EDT