"M. S. AtKisson" wrote:
I've deleted most of this conversation unread due to lack of time, soNow that explains it! ;) Thanks Peg. I was just wondering because I often see this on C-SPAN. Sometimes I feel like writing Brian Lamb and saying: "Look 90% of are nerds, we probably understand it, have 'em give to us straight. They are closer than anyone in public media in my not so humble opinion. But I will take a peek at other educational TV ands see things like supposedly a study stating women are more sexually arousable around ovulation, based around a study that was self selected, sort of like a study based around a survery in Cosmopolitan Magazine.
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
I haven't had the timeto check all of Ian Jobling's references to literature. It could threaten to hold water and then again it couldn't. Lots of studies are like that like the one that showed that the best predictor of strength is height. It means tall people are in general stronger than shorter people. But it gives us little extra to go on.
Now to throw Artinto it. Has anyone the background to do a first pass analysis of those books which like forms of mental illness with artistic ability. I have had no luck as of late in tracking the book as of late. The title was "Touched By Fire"(alas a popular title). If anyone could give general good comment that would be great. Does it hold water or is it one of those old truisms.
Have Fun,
Sends Steve
===================================================================
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