4 ms·
Unscientific ideas can inspire useful and possibly prescient thoughts. To me that was the real subtext of this article. The people you're quoting clearly read
by Ollinson 11y ago
Unscientific ideas can inspire useful and possibly prescient thoughts. To me that was the real subtext of this article.
The people you're quoting clearly read at least part of the article (they quoted or paraphrased it). I think it's fair to assume they thought anyone reading their comments would read them in the context of the article. The article itself is very critical of Jaynes' ideas and almost all the quoted professionals say "yes that's very interesting, but he has no proof and most of it is flat out wrong."
Anyway that's my long way of saying most articles aren't worth reading but this one is.
- copsarebastards 11y ago> The people you're quoting clearly read at least part of the article (they quoted or paraphrased it). I think it's fair to assume they thought anyone reading their comments would read them in the context of the article. That's true, but it doesn't respond to either of my concerns: 1. Did the commenters gloss over the criticism? Do they understand that the criticism of bicameralism is more scientifically valid than the idea itself? 2. Could an HN reader who didn't read the article gather from the comments that bicameralism is not established scientific fact?