Looked up the Huxley quote, and it seems to be real.
Speaking of quotes, this by CS Lewis seems relevant to your closing remarks:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Perhaps I should have remphasized more strongly that, indeed, learning how to do science effectively requires quite a bit of study and training, precisely because naive intuition can yield nonsensical predictions when applied in overly novel contexts. This piece is an important qualifier that people should certainly keep in mind.
A bit late to the party here. This issue - science vs. common sense - is one of those questions where the brain kind of jumps around from one aspect to the other, and kind of helplessly comes to the conclusion: well, urm, yes and no... Or so it seems to me.
Just to add 2 thoughts here: first, maybe learning is not so much (or not only) about applying certain things to other things, but more like "tuning into something" with the help of a teacher, book, etc. That's been my understanding of McGilchrist's quote, and also my experience.
Second, I think we are somewhat handicapped by the fact that "all men are equal" has been drilled into us for a long time. It is just not true. Hence, what one man calls common sense can be sheer lunacy, while another's man's common sense can be the expression of timeless knowledge from the depths of his soul, which we should give precedence over any "study" or scientific thought until we have matured enough to really grasp what this guy is saying and to be able to think it through based on the right mindset. I think this makes many studies in psychology problematic, because you can have a group that wildly differs in wisdom and deep, intuitive understanding, something which is hardly measurable and controllable. (I would call it spiritual development, but you don't have to go down that route if you don't like.)
Gash, I just made it even more complicated I guess.
Looked up the Huxley quote, and it seems to be real.
Speaking of quotes, this by CS Lewis seems relevant to your closing remarks:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Perhaps I should have remphasized more strongly that, indeed, learning how to do science effectively requires quite a bit of study and training, precisely because naive intuition can yield nonsensical predictions when applied in overly novel contexts. This piece is an important qualifier that people should certainly keep in mind.
A bit late to the party here. This issue - science vs. common sense - is one of those questions where the brain kind of jumps around from one aspect to the other, and kind of helplessly comes to the conclusion: well, urm, yes and no... Or so it seems to me.
Just to add 2 thoughts here: first, maybe learning is not so much (or not only) about applying certain things to other things, but more like "tuning into something" with the help of a teacher, book, etc. That's been my understanding of McGilchrist's quote, and also my experience.
Second, I think we are somewhat handicapped by the fact that "all men are equal" has been drilled into us for a long time. It is just not true. Hence, what one man calls common sense can be sheer lunacy, while another's man's common sense can be the expression of timeless knowledge from the depths of his soul, which we should give precedence over any "study" or scientific thought until we have matured enough to really grasp what this guy is saying and to be able to think it through based on the right mindset. I think this makes many studies in psychology problematic, because you can have a group that wildly differs in wisdom and deep, intuitive understanding, something which is hardly measurable and controllable. (I would call it spiritual development, but you don't have to go down that route if you don't like.)
Gash, I just made it even more complicated I guess.