<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Pseudoscience (Redux) in reply to Dr. Cohen
Review: I am the "galling...anonymous fellow ophthalmologist" who has provoked Dr. Cohen's review. I believe his comments warrant replies:
1)"Rods and cones. How the facts are wrong is not stated (take my word for it is the tone) and how these facts detract from the thesis is not stated."
The human retina consists of an outer cell layer of rods and cones that communicate with the ganglion cells by way of the inner cell layer of interconnected horizontal, bipolar and amacrine neural cells. The ganglion cell layer forms the optic nerves of each eye, which, after intermixing at the optic chiasm, communicate with the occipital cortex of both right and left cerebral hemispheres. Dr. Shlain's contention that rod and cone information can be divided into right and left brain information is factually inaccurate . These cells communicate with each other through (at the very least) the amacrine cells in the retina itself. That is, discreet rod and cone signals are not sent out to the brain, but rather the information is already integrated before it leaves the eyes. And this information is further mixed at the chiasm.
2)" Allowing for poetic license and metaphor I do not find any gross errors in this regard to his thesis."
After reading Chapter 3 again and discussing it with several colleagues, I can find no other ophthalmologist that agrees with Dr. Cohen that there are no "errors in this ...thesis."
3)" Because the facts in chapter three regarding these retinal receptors (referring to all of three pages) are all wrong the whole book is suspect."
In science, once a hypothesis is stated, experiments are designed to disprove it. Any one experiment that disproves the hypothesis renders it invalid. Alternately, in nonscientific debates (such as a legal arguments), multiple positive examples of support are sought to bolster the hypothesis. It is the quest for the negative that is the hallmark of true scientific study.
4)" This book was stimulated by a puzzle that occurred to an inquiring mind; "Where have all the G-ddesses gone?" Asking the experts didn't bring any satisfactory answers."
This book represents itself as nonfiction and is located in the Women's Study section of many booksellers. The question it brings up is important and has stimulated many scholars such as Reanne Eisler ("The Chalice and the Blade'') to look for historical and scientific evidence on why the Ishtars and the Ises and the Artemisis of early history have been supplanted by male dominated theology. An understanding of this change in society may help us understand the origins of wife beating, satee, female infanticide and female genital mutilation. For those of us interested in this subject, we resent the inclusion of fiction in this category. Dr. Shlain is a talented writer, but one whose works belong in the fiction section.
Finally, I should address why all this matters to me. I am not a prolific reader, nor have I written other reviews. But being the father of an adult daughter who sees the misogyny of present day society, and believing that a physician's teachings must be of the highest standards, I find Dr. Shlain's anti intellectual book offensive. Whether my opinion is of any interest or even belongs on such a public forum as the Amazon Review pages is not for me, but for others to decide.
Stephen Prepas MD
Rating: 
Summary: Regarding Expert Opinions
Review: I don't normally write critiques of previous reviews; after all opinions are personal. But there have been a number of recent postings for this book that are disconcerting. The tone is "I am an expert in this field and Dr. Shlain has distorted the facts, therefore the book is worthless."One that is really galling was written by an anonymous fellow ophthalmologist who is an expert on rods and cones. Because the facts in chapter three regarding these retinal receptors (referring to all of three pages) are all wrong the whole book is suspect. How the facts are wrong is not stated (take my word for it is the tone) and how these facts detract from the thesis is not stated. Allowing for poetic license and metaphor I do not find any gross errors in this regard to his thesis. One must understand that although Dr. Shlain is broadly read and many of his sources are well documented this is not a TEXTBOOK and doesn't pretend to be. Dr. Shlain doesn't claim to be a linguist or an anthropologist; he is quite open in presenting his background as a vascular surgeon. This book was stimulated by a puzzle that occurred to an inquiring mind; "Where have all the G-ddesses gone?" Asking the experts didn't bring any satisfactory answers. And so the idea for a thesis, which became this book was born. Its purpose was to stimulate ideas and promote controversy. And by the majority of reviews it has done this well. It is by no means a dry textbook. And it may just stimulate someone to write another book challenging his thesis - which I'm sure Dr. Shain would love. He only asks that his book be read with an open mind.
Rating:
Summary: I got in an argument with my Dad over this book!
Review: I was drawn to title, I'd never heard of the author, and after just a few pages I found myself in several heated conversations with people about how writing changed the fate of women. My Dad stormed out of the room saying men and women could never have been equal at any time in history. I'm just riveted by Dr. Shlain's ability to weave the suppositions from archeologists, Biblical scholars, historians and neurologists into such an exciting, palatable, provocative and informative read. I've been aware of these characters or icons from history all my life, but I've never had any sense of relationship among these stories from different lands. This is the first text I've run across that stops to ask why do we know who these people are? How did they learn to write? Who were they before they wrote? What stories DIDN'T get written down? What did they have to sacrifice to learn to write? It wasn't until I read his chapters on the "adjustments" the Greek myths suffered that I realized as a girl studying those stories in school, they really did leave me feeling less valuable as a woman and guilty for disliking those female deities. Lo and behold, that's what they were designed to do! Still effective after 5,000 years. This is a remarkable text that should not be disregarded as feminist or fantasy. He's well-researched, offers several respected hypotheses to explain undocumented historical impacts and his presentation is enormously enjoyable.
Rating: 
Summary: Engrossing, provocative read
Review: I'm not sure that I buy that reading changes the neurochemistry of the brain. I think that there are some other ways that literacy could correlate with misogyny. In my mental model of the universe, woman traditionally have held sway in the private realm, men in the public. In pre-literate societies, the public sphere and the private sphere were probably roughly the same size. With the advent of writing, the size of the public sphere got much much bigger. Furthermore, many of the most prolific male writers -- particularly on religious issues -- were ones who did not have good relationships with women. The ones in happy relationships spent their free time at home hanging out with the wife and kids! It makes sense to me that after not much time, the written corpus would thus be dominated by men. If almost everything you read is written by men, and you value reading, it makes sense to me that this would lead to devaluing women -- even by women. Even though I am not convinced about reading causing physiological changes, this is a very interesting, provocative book that I will recommend to many people. It isn't the last word by any means, but it's a very interesting starting point.
Rating:
Summary: the equivalent of a year-long college humanities class
Review: In college my favorite classes were the first, second, and third year humanities classes. I love the big picture. This 464-page book, I think, offers the popular equivalent of a year-long college humanities class. (But be prepared for upper-division college vocabulary!) Schlain's controversial but compelling thesis is that in human culture over time, we can see a pattern: when linear (alphabetic) reading & writing prevail, cultural respect for women diminishes. "Alphabetic" means linear character script not including pictographs such as hieroglyphics but yes including ideographs such as Chinese characters. An inverse relationship exists, he claims, between high levels of *alphabetic* literacy and low levels of respect & protection for women, between patriarchal dominance and feminine subjugation. To prove his point, Schlain takes us on a humorous, readable, *erudite but easily understandable* tour of recorded world civilization. His thesis may or may not be justifiable. You be the judge. But buy this book for the recorded history tour!! Schlain's thesis is radical now but maybe in a few years it will be widely accepted. I personally was convinced! Plus, I gained a new teaching perspective. Recommended for language & humanities teachers especially! If you assign this book to your college students, tell them to read it with serious English dictionary handy.
<< 1 >>
| 
