Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Lateralization of brain function) (bot |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. Approved trial for Task 2 |
||
Line 352:
== The Master and His Emissary ==
''[[The Master and His Emissary]]: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World'' is a new study of the specialist hemispheric functioning of the brain, and the conflict between their world views, by the psychiatrist and writer Iain McGilchrist. Published 2009. <b
: As ''The Economist'' notes in their review, McGilchrist seems to take astonishingly liberties with the scientific literature [[User:Edhubbard|Edhubbard]] ([[User talk:Edhubbard|talk]]) 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
::But the reader is also treated to some very loose talk and to generalisations of breathtaking sweep. The left’s world is “ultimately narcissistic”; its “prime motivation is power”, and the Industrial Revolution was, in some mysterious sense, the left’s “most audacious assault yet on the world of the right hemisphere”. The sainted right, by contrast, has “ideals” that are in harmony with an “essentially local, agrarian, communitarian, organic” conception of democracy... But he offers no evidence that such differences can be explained in physiological terms... The book ends with a deflating admission that will not surprise those readers who feel the author’s main claims about the cerebral hemispheres have the ring of loose analogies rather than hard explanations. Mr McGilchrist would not be unhappy to learn that what he has to say about the roles of the hemispheres in Western culture is simply a metaphor and is not literally true. In other words, he seems to be in two minds about his own thesis, which is fitting but not encouraging.
:::Have expanded and balanced the article a bit now. Apparently the philosopher [[Mary Midgley]] will be reviewing the book in [[The Guardian]] in early January 2010. Will see what she has to say. <b
::::'''Comment''' Mary Midgley's review (Jan 2010) <ref>http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/02/1</ref> says "McGilchrist's explanation of such oddities in terms of our divided nature is clear, penetrating, lively, thorough and fascinating. Though neurologists may well not welcome it because it asks them new questions, the rest of us will surely find it splendidly thought-provoking." Given that [[Mary Midgley]] is acknowledged by Wikipedia as being described by The Guardian as "a fiercely combative philosopher and the UK's 'foremost scourge of 'scientific pretension'", Wikipedia would do well to allow McGilchist's book as a reference. [[User:Simplicissimo|Simplicissimo]] ([[User talk:Simplicissimo|talk]]) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
* The book is published by [[Yale University Press]]. That is a [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view|significant]] publisher. Whether we think it is hard science, metaphor or philosophy, a book by them addressing this specific topic is a RS and a bona fide addition. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 20:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Line 361:
::: To clarify, it does not matter for the entry on the book, itself. We should have an entry on the book. But, given that this book does not purport to actually provide any factually correct information on the topic of ''this article'', lateralization of brain function, but rather uses it as a "loose analog[y]" or a "metaphor" that is "not literally true", it should not be included on ''this page'' due to the wikipedia policies cited above. [[User:Edhubbard|Edhubbard]] ([[User talk:Edhubbard|talk]]) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' What we're talking about here is my attempt to include the book in "further reading", an action that was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lateralization_of_brain_function&action=historysubmit&diff=333312394&oldid=333115114 reverted]. I can appreciate your desire to keep what you see as "poppsych" weeded out of the article, so that it is not flagged as "pseudoscience" (whilst remembering that this is not someone's "recommended reading list" but a representative list of "further reading"). However, I think it's a little unfair to base your judgement on the reaction of a reviewer in ''The Economist''. The [http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/The_Master_and_his_Emissary_by_McGilchrist.pdf introduction to the book (pdf)] seems to paint a different picture of the book's actual content.
::::I like to run articles past their subjects and the author points out to me that "As to the neuropsychological, neurophysiological and other evidence, there are about 3,000 references to the literature included in the notes", and he himself dismisses what he sees as some popular misconceptions about lateralization, though I am reliant on input from reliable sources and cannot of course use phrases like "meticulously documented" until reliable sources use such phraseology. Further reading could perhaps be split into "mainstream" and "<strike>fringe</strike>" "popular psychology" (again remembering that heliocentricity was at one time dismissed as "fringe" theory :)), if it can be established that this is fringe theory, in order not to give undue weight to the less popular mainstream. Just a thought, <b
:None of the reviewers appear to have scientific credentials, as far as I can see. A book of this sort is likely to be reviewed by ''Science'' or ''Nature'' soon, if it hasn't been already, and reviews there would give a much better idea of whether this is a suitable book to direct readers toward for further information. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, that seems fair enough. <b
== Connection between Broca's and Wernicke’s ==
| |||