(no subject)

[robinturner]

Found this in kiad's userinfo (I don't know whether she agrees with it or not - probabaly not, judging by the other quotations)

The motto of the Royal Society of London is 'Nullius in verba' : trust not in words. Observation and experiment are what count, not opinion and introspection. Few working scientists have much respect for those who try to interpret nature in metaphysical terms. For most wearers of white coats, philosophy is to science as pornography is to sex: it is cheaper, easier, and some people seem, bafflingly, to prefer it. Outside of psychology it plays almost no part in the functions of the research machine.''
(Steve Jones, University College, London)
From his review of How the Mind Works (by Steve Pinker) in The New York Review of Books (pages 13-14) November 6, 1997.

Typical psychologist reaction. They're stuck with a pre-paradigmatic science, so they sling mud at anything that sound unempirical. Physicists don't have this inferiority complex, and so don't slag off philosophy.

Comments

Re: science & philosophy

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

But you know, I might almost want to say that mayBE it's what romance novels are to sex.

That is the best thing I've ever read!

And I totally agree re: female versions of porn. Look at any women's magazine; it's a total porn rag.

Re: science & philosophy

[solri.livejournal.com]

I once said that Playboy was basically Cosmopolitan for men, but with more politics and less sex.

Re: science & philosophy

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

Hah.
Not that I've ever read Playboy, though I did once flip through an issue. One of those "Babes of the Ivy League" issues, or something. I was really unimpressed. Then again, the Playboy ideal of beauty is not my ideal of beauty.

Cosmo, though I've only looked at a couple of issues, alienates me from my gender. As do all women's magazines. They seem to make pornography out of romance, while men's magazines make pornography out of sex. In either case, it's all pornography.

Re: science & philosophy

[solri.livejournal.com]

I don't think Cosmo is that concerned with romance. From what I've read, it's much more into the technical details of copulation than, say, Playboy. I think both magazines suss out the average reader pretty well. On the whole, men like looking at beautiful women, but we don't want to read about clitoral orgasms or G-spots*. If we want to read something technical, we read about cars or electronics.

* I was most relieved to find out (from Cosmo or something similar) that there it has been conclusively proved the the G-spot is a myth.

Re: science & philosophy

[ex-fauxpas266.livejournal.com]

I don't think Cosmo is that concerned with romance.

I agree. Notice that I switched from talking about Cosmo in specific to women's magazines in general.

Re: science & philosophy

[watermelonpunch.livejournal.com]

See, now I wouldn't put Jane Austen novels on the same level as that piggy magazine Cosmopolitan. haha. I wouldn't even put Stella Cameron or other erotic romance novels on the same level (like ones that actually have a plot and a story of love). On the few times I've read stuff in "Cosmo", it's struck me as very, very shallow. Like all that women are supposed to be concerned about is money & sex and pleasing a man and trapping one or some damn shit. I felt the magazine had no regard at all for my delicate feelings, if you know what I mean.

I'm sure I'm just making a sweeping judgement of the magazine, I'm sure there are other aspects to it... it's just that's what the focus seems to definitely be.

Re: science & philosophy

[solri.livejournal.com]

See, now I wouldn't put Jane Austen novels on the same level as that piggy magazine Cosmopolitan.

While I admire Austen's command of the English language (she can even make a comma make a difference), I still think Sense and Sensibility would have been better with some raunchy sex scenes.

Re: science & philosophy

[watermelonpunch.livejournal.com]

Well, it wouldn't have gone with the times. haha.

I think the stories were more about life in general than romance. Just my opinion.

Re: science & philosophy

[solri.livejournal.com]

I agree. Romance is usually only there as an opportunity for Austen to make acid but understated observations on her society.

The problem I have with Austen is that, while I accept she's a keen observer and a brilliant stylist, she writes about, in the words of my old Science Fiction teacher, "boring people doing boring things". I propose a reverse Bowdlerisation

• Crazed courier goes postal with a blunderbuss in Mansfield Park!


• Sense and Sensibility - the guy has both sisters!


• Northanger Abbey gets really Gothic, with vampires, flesh-eating zombies etc.

Re: science & philosophy

[watermelonpunch.livejournal.com]

Um, but they're not "guy books", like "guy movies". I think that could be part of the issue there.
Seriously.
Indeed, I wouldn't recommend Jane Austen to any man really.

Because I completely disagree. The stories are not about boring people doing boring things. I found all her stories fascinating and, indeed, gripping. Very interesting.

Could be about being a conniseour of human folly too. heh.
I'm a great people watcher, if you know what I mean.

Just last night my friend Leslie (who is a psychiatrist and much like me in that), said, "You know, my mother's right, we do find amusement in silly small things."

Re: science & philosophy

[solri.livejournal.com]

Maybe I just have a problem with the "novel of manners". I haven't read that much nineteenth-century fiction (I even read as little of it as I could when I was studying it), but the two authors I do like are Joseph Conrad and Thomas Hardy, who sort of write "guy novels". Splice the mainbrace and bring in the hay. In general, I vastly prefer genre fiction: SF, horror, detective stories (in the Chandler rather than the Christie tradition), satire, historical novels (of the swashbuckling, not the romantic variety), magical realism and so on. Overall, I suppose that makes me a "guy book" kind of a guy.

BTW, an excellent (female) TV presenter here in Turkey recently said something like, "It's not true about men being unemotional. Your husband may yawn his way through the Meg Ryan film which had you constantly reaching for the tissues, but sit him in front of a war film, wait for the scene where the hero's carrying his dying buddy, and watch the tears roll down his nose."

BTW, despite my flippant comments about sex scenes, I generally don't enjoy erotic fiction. I can handle Anais Nin in small doses, but when I tried reading The Story of O I got bored to death and gave up after about thirty pages.

Re: science & philosophy

[watermelonpunch.livejournal.com]

It very well could be the "novel of manners" issue. I quite like that topic, really.

But though I like Joseph Conrad, you hit it right on the spot - definitely a guy novel writer.
Indeed, there are many meandering observational descriptions of Joseph Conrad's that I found less clever and more ho-hum, while they're probably the observations a lot of men would find very shrewd.
I don't think this makes a something good or bad. It's just a matter of how in some things, men & women have different perspectives.
I can enjoy a "guy movie", for example, some are among my favourites - but I notice those elements straight away, and often find them humourous. (I'm less likely to put up with it in literature though, as time goes on. Not quite sure why.)

While I'm moved by war movies... I don't particularly seek them out. I don't enjoy that type of emotionalism. But I do know many men who do, and most of the women I know actually hate war movies.

BTW, I'm not heavy into erotic fiction, period. Though I do like romance, and certainly don't mind some erotica in a more complete story. Like mystery or action, etc.
And I must say, I've noticed I'm more interested in "sex scenes" in reading material during times I'm "not getting any" myself. In fact, I'd go so far as to say if it weren't for erotic literature, I'd probably wouldn't be such a prude... I very well might be very promiscuous. HAHAHA.