100 Most Important Science Books

David Lloyd-Jones icomm5 at netcom.ca
Sun Nov 14 08:39:20 EST 1999


SA <stephan at nospam.ucla.edu> wrote

> Pavlov, Spence, Hull, Hebb, Skinner there are lots of classics, half of
> psychology and a large part of neuroscience are based on.  It's hard to
> say which is the most significant, but it's probably Pavlov's. There are
> also lots of papers that are more significant than books, though.

I defer to you out of ignorance of the field.

> As far as Freud not being a scientist, he certainly was a scientist,
> unfortunately science was not what it was today.  But you can't sit and
> criticize someone who basically replaced the idea that people who were
> mentally ill were possesed by evil spirits.  Even Mesmer was a scientist.

I guess I just don't think that incompetent scientists with wrong and/or
dishonest doctrines should get on a "Top 100" list just because they're
famous.

> Now all of us would consider Aristotle a scientist (and widely recognized
> as a fine biologist), and he thought the mind was in the bodily fluids.

Speak for yourself. I think that Aristotle, the biologist who taught us that
camels live on stones and men and women have different numbers of ribs and
teeth, has hung on down the centuries because he is a propagandist of a
particularly oleaginous kind of bourgeois fatuity popular with the
complacent.

                                             -dlj.








More information about the Bioforum mailing list