What made it possible for these two siblings to win the prestigious prizes? Was it their genes or their educational and social upbringing? Which brings us to the classic tug-of-war between nature and nurture. Which has the strongest influence on a person’s life, nature or nurture? A look at the brothers’ family background as well as the educational and social environments in which they grew up, might throw light on these questions. We shall also take a look at their work, their groundbreaking ideas and the opposition to these ideas, and the uncanny way in which their lives seemed to duplicate each other.
Een interessant essay (op een wellicht nog interessantere website) dat de theorieën van Ramachandran en Zeki zeer kritisch tegen het licht houdt. Het meest fascinerende van dit artikel is dat dit niet op basis van het verwijt van te ver doorgeschoten reductionisme gebeurt (zoals de meeste criticasters die Ramachandran van pseudo-wetenschap beschuldigen wel doen).
Unfortunately, however, Ramachandran’s theory has three fatal weaknesses. First, Ramachandran seems to have misunderstood the peak shift effect. Second, the theory is not really about art at all. It is really about why men are attracted to women with big breasts. And third, the theory is based on an extremely limited knowledge of art.
via interdisciplines : Art and Cognition Workshops : Art and Neuroscience. (lees vooral ook de discussie in de rechterkolom, naast het artikel)