(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

[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.