I wouldn't go for a moral argument. Let's keep it scientific. I do believe that The Algebraic Mind is one of the must reads of anyone interested in Cognitive Neuroscience Theory, even if you are wrong. BTW, I skimmed though a paper by Willem Zuidema that claims you are wrong.
-
-
-
good for you for reading the reply, too!
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
refusing to engage in reading your book being the specific case here; who knows what else they read?
-
nice try but no: he articulated a general principle, not a specific issue with The Algebraic Mind. (he couldn't even identify the broad nature of the book, in fact, misidentifying it as a lay audience book; obviously false to anyone knowing that prestigious list).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
By outside my own discipline, do you mean cognitive psychology? Like the subject I got my PhD in? I'm well versed. And I've read your book. It's a useful review with some interesting new ideas, but isn't detailed or focused enough to be the subject of follow-up work.
-
show me your system for handling - universally quantified one-to-one mappings - type-token distinction or - structured representations And I will think you have something substantive to say; otherwise you are just trying to blow off those ideas without anything substantive.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
It's a problem both for science in general and for each discipline. But it's not refusal, it's the easiest path to within-discipline success. Broader interests are probably more successful in the longer term, but the system disintentivizes it, so it takes quite a personality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.