Appendix: Critique and Responses

As this website cannot, does not, claim any weight of authority on the science surrounding Iain McGilchrist’s book ‘The Master and his Emissary’, some wider review of the book was sought. Therefore, reference is now made to a critique by Kenan Malik linked to a workshop discussion organised by the RSA in London and the response of Iain McGilchrist. While the critique and response appear to be dated around February 2013, a search of the RSA website does not appear to make any reference to this workshop. However, the links above to both the critique and responses will first take you to the paraphrased version in this appendix, but which then link to the actual webpage for full reference.

By way of introduction, Kenan Malik is an Indian-born British writer, lecturer and broadcaster, trained in neurobiology and the history of science. As an academic author, his focus is on the philosophy of biology, and contemporary theories of multiculturalism, pluralism and race. As such, it is assumed that Malik is broadly qualify to critique the work of McGilchrist.

Simply by way of reciprocal reference, Iain McGilchrist is a psychiatrist, writer, and former Oxford literary scholar. After reading English at New College, Oxford, he later retrained in medicine and has been a neuroimaging researcher at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and a Consultant Psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital in south London. He is also a Fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and has three times been elected a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.

The following subsections are edited versions of the critique and responses simply to provide some brevity of the detail that can be reviewed in full by referencing the original webpage, such that there is no intention to infringe the copyright of either person. The format of this review is as follows:

While this appendix will not make any further commentary on the arguments, for or against, it will be indicated that the critique and responses appear to be focused on more philosophical issues, which this commentary has tried to avoid, rather than scientific detail. However, readers must make up their own mind on the nature of this debate, possibly biased to their own left or right thinking.