We’ve talked about this.
‘Why Malcolm Gladwell matters and why it unfortunate,” this cognitive scientist sums it up:
UI don’t think the main flaw is oversimplification (though that is a problem: Einstein was right when he—supposedly—advised that things be made as simple as possible, but no simpler). As I wrote in my own review, the main flaw is a lack of logic and proper evidence in the argumentation. But consider what Gladwell’s quote means. He is saying that if you understand his topics enough to see what he is doing wrong, then you are not the reader he wants. At a stroke he has said that anyone equipped to properly review his work should not be reading it. How convenient! Those who are left are only those who do not think the material is oversimplified.
4 Replies to “Why materialist neuroscience is dying and why it matters”
Chabris’ criticism of Gladwell is fascinating and worth reading, but it has absolutely nothing to do with “materialist neuroscience.” Once again, News indicates no familiarity at all with the articles and blog-posts to which he or she links.
The connection is slightly indirect, via “enemy of my enemy” bed-fellowing strategy, since Gladwell appears to be one of favorite “materialist neuroscience” targets at UD.
Gladwell represents “materialist neuroscience” about as well as I represent professional wrestling.
Moreover, this psychopathic characteristic inherent to the atheistic philosophy is born out empirically, in that people who do not believe in a soul tend to be more psychopathic than the majority of normal people in America who do believe in a soul. You can pick that psychopathic study of atheists around the 14:30 minute mark of this following video:
Verse and Music: