I just blogged about Colin Talbot‘s “Paradoxical Primate” which despite the unlikely sounding TLA (Three Letter Acronym) “PST” (Paradoxical Systems Theory) jargon, and the negative review I initially stumbled upon, I found the subject and title headings sufficiently attractive to order a copy.
I’d just renewed contact with Bruce Charlton only a couple of days ago, someone I’d come across previously as a writer who cited the applicability of Pirsig’s work in the health-care business (as does James Willis) though the Pirsig connection is incidental to the subject matter.
Well, browsing Colin’s book at Amazon I browsed the citations list. Lo and behold “Paradoxical Primate” cites Bruce Charlton’s “Modernization Imperative“, and it turns out Bruce was unaware of this.
Post Note : In fact there is no citation. Amazon’s link collects up references to other books by the same publisher inside the back cover. Anyway, having read Colin Talbot’s Paradoxical Primate – I find little to add – it’s a book I could have written myself – excellent; all my own agenda points very well made. Spooky. Must post a more detailed review.)
Anyway, “Modernization Imperative” looks very interesting too, on the subject of systems of governance. I’ll blog a more detailed review later.
Interestingly Bruce Charlton also edits “Medical Hypotheses” whose editorial policy includes this:
Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to peer review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability.
Worth linking to Nick Maxwell’s stuff on the neurosis of science, in presuming the only way to proceed is direct to critical review and empirical test, do not pass go. Brian Josephson would approve of the suspension of the over-skeptical response (pathological disbelief) to the radical too.