Perfection Salad (1988)
meaningness.com
meaningness.com
Here at the end of the twentieth century, it seems mostly absurd to think that science has anything much to say about cooking, and we thus have a degree of distance on a particular manifestation of a group of connected twistednesses that still dominate the way we think about most things.
It seems to argue that cooking is somehow "exempt" from being analyzed by science? That's so absurd I didn't know what to think, but the rest of the piece (as far as I made it) didn't seem to be satire either.
A very strange essay, basically.
It's indicative that this was written in the 80's. Brain/mind scientists have always adopted the science/technology of their time as analogies, for better or worse. (Think of Freud's "pressures" and "venting" in the era of the steam engine.) The first cognitive scientists were borrowing from then-nascent computers and casting brains as information-processing modules.
Unfortunately, this particular essay does a poor job of showing that cognitive science is as unsound as "domestic science". The value of an analogy or model is in its explanatory power, and cognitive science did not do too badly there.
E.g., the hierarchy of the visual system: as it passes from one module to the next, retinal input gets turned into lines, line junctions get turned into corners, edges are combined into shapes, etc. One virtue is that, like any sequential process, this explains why damage in an earlier area stops later processing; if you damage V1, the later color area has no information to work with. (You can imagine an alternative where every visual area receives all retinal input, so you'd lose the ability to see lines/edges, but not colors.)
The author seems to be writing a much larger treatise on our mistaken theories of the nature of mind, but this particular essay is unconvincing.
The point I took away is that scientific disciplines act like they're sound long before they actually are, so you can't evaluate the soundness of a science based on its own confident pronouncements.
Certainly the history of cognitive science involved making strong claims before they were valid. While some parts of the brain, like the early visual system, were understood correctly early on, the role of the cortex in cognition is still poorly understood.
That doesn't stop people from confidently promoting mental disciplines to optimize learning, memory, or happiness. And we should be skeptical.
My point is that while there are legit criticisms to be made, this essay isn't a particularly good one.
However, knowing a few cognitive scientists, I believe they are much better aware of the limitations of their discipline than credited by the author.
> Science genuinely relevant to food had yet to be invented. So domestic scientists applied irrelevant science, and prescribed scientific-seeming rituals to be adhered to when cooking.
“How dumb am I?”
“You’re so dumb you’re as dumb as household science!”
The connection between the two amounts to two paragraphs at the end broadly claiming cognitive science is just the same.
I humbly propose "tizzer".
It makes me think of the kid who stands behind the school bully, egging them on, enjoying jeering at the person who happens to be on the wrong side of the power balance but not capable of doing the ugly business themselves.
Maybe some of these people are genuine scientists. Although none of the scientists I work with dress like that.
The "power balance" of willful ignorance? Who gets on "the wrong side" of science without promoting a position they are incapable of verifying?
> willful ignorance? Who gets on "the wrong side" of science without promoting a position they are incapable of verifying?
This smacks strongly of "stop hitting yourself".
What constitutes bullying is in the eye of the victim, not the perpetrator.
So anyone has a right to feel opressed? Smacks of privalige..
You want vitriol? Try being on the wrong side of religion.
The point is quite straightforward, not controversial:
If you listen only to the bully you clearly won't hear the victim's story.
If you refuse to consider that a person who says they are a victim of bullying is indeed a victim of bullying then you perpetuate the silencing of that person, and enable the bully.
I doubt you'd disagree?
Do we disagree on whether proponents of science can be bullies? It would seem remarkable if they were immune.
Comparing science vs religion to determine who is worse regarding vitriol is a complete waste of time, and another strawman.
You said "What constitutes bullying is in the eye of the victim". So anyone can decide that they are a victim.
> Do we disagree on whether proponents of science can be bullies?
Thus is a actual straw Man. How does this relate to a kid wearing a slogan t-shirt?
> Comparing science vs religion to determine who is worse regarding vitriol is a complete waste of time, and another strawman.
No it isn't; you are the one who talked about vitriol, and balances of power; Just because you don't like a point, doesn't make it a "strawman".
By analogy with Astronomer/Astrologist, real scientists should call themselves Scienters, and fake ones Scientologists. But that name is taken.