... these people really go at it: In which the data back up our habitual suspicions. (Hat tip, Dave Lull, who observes - and I quite agree with him - that our mutual friend Henry Gee is a brave man.)
There is one thread on Nature Network that is 94 pages (that's pages, not posts! each page holds several posts) long. It seems to be mostly a male argument. It is called "the quest for a definition of consciousness" or some such. Some of the participants are mad, some are not, all are convinced they are right.
I don't know if Henry is brave or just enjoys writing about his position as he sees it. Sometimes he is quite intolerant of those who don't have the same religious or political beliefs as him, but we don't all like writing about these things or reading other people's strongly held views on them (that's not why I use the internet!). Most of the conversation on Nature Network is stimulating, fun, controversial, upfront, etc, but not aggressive or personally nasty. That's one reason I like it. But in the thread to which you link here, there are a couple of people who ramble on too much about their own personal life-experience and then extrapolate it to others in general. As I said somewhere in there, there are no all-good solutions, its tough for everyone, and making out you are a martyr is in some way negating the contributions of the other people who are not moaning. However, I do think it is true that there is a large class of men who have a baby and don't seem to notice for the next 10 years or so, until they can take the offspring to football matches once a week or whatever ;-)
Oh, you guys . Sometimes I feel as if I am battling alone against the Guardianistas, you know, the peeople who can't broadcast for the BBC, so they write for it, and go around with the view that anyone is free to hold whatever view they like, as long as it's their view. This is the opinion that has crippled western civilization since the 1960s. Viva La Revolucion.
There is one thread on Nature Network that is 94 pages (that's pages, not posts! each page holds several posts) long. It seems to be mostly a male argument. It is called "the quest for a definition of consciousness" or some such. Some of the participants are mad, some are not, all are convinced they are right.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Henry is brave or just enjoys writing about his position as he sees it. Sometimes he is quite intolerant of those who don't have the same religious or political beliefs as him, but we don't all like writing about these things or reading other people's strongly held views on them (that's not why I use the internet!). Most of the conversation on Nature Network is stimulating, fun, controversial, upfront, etc, but not aggressive or personally nasty. That's one reason I like it. But in the thread to which you link here, there are a couple of people who ramble on too much about their own personal life-experience and then extrapolate it to others in general. As I said somewhere in there, there are no all-good solutions, its tough for everyone, and making out you are a martyr is in some way negating the contributions of the other people who are not moaning. However, I do think it is true that there is a large class of men who have a baby and don't seem to notice for the next 10 years or so, until they can take the offspring to football matches once a week or whatever ;-)
The quest for a definition of the term 'consciousness' now runs to 97 pages.
ReplyDeleteOh, you guys . Sometimes I feel as if I am battling alone against the Guardianistas, you know, the peeople who can't broadcast for the BBC, so they write for it, and go around with the view that anyone is free to hold whatever view they like, as long as it's their view. This is the opinion that has crippled western civilization since the 1960s. Viva La Revolucion.
ReplyDeleteMethinks I'll stay on the sidelines in this one.
ReplyDelete