Neuroscience Methodology and Deconstruction

Q-Does this mean I can use a drill on the proverbial head of Neuroscience?
A-You need to rephrase this as a “theraputic intervention” and call the drill a “orbital depth guaging device” that results in a “slightly charged emotional state” but yes.

The problem is contextual and the descriptive translation of our “medical device” from a drill- IE the methodology.
Neuroscience history seems to run concurrent with history of psychology.Check the dates on some of these classic papers.
Society for Neuroscience-Classic Papers:
So my above example was brutish but this exemplifies some of the descriptive problems that will haunt us with Neuroscience. This was recognized very early on:
Ritchie, B.F. (1953) The Circumnavigation of Cognition.(3.3MB) Psychological Review, 60: 216-221.

From “the stakes..” 1BOM:
“Paxil Study 329 and Paxil Study 352 come immediately to mind. There was a protocol for each. Each published paper stated that the primary outcome variables weren’t met, and then the silver-penned Sally Laden spun her magic and there they sit in our literature as testimonies to something rotten. The STAR*D $35 M study had a thick detailed protocol book, and in spite if 100+ published papers, the primary outcome variables have never seen the light of day. So preregistration doesn’t necessarily hold people in the road or guarantee integrity, but it’s a step in the right direction.

The stakes are too high these days – grants, promotion, tenure, prestige, fame and fortune. So how about preregistration, and accessible raw data, and rigorous peer review, and integrity in the editorial process, and retraction of distorted scientific articles? And if you run across something exciting off the path in paper #1 like in Mathôt‘s example, mention it in #1 then move on to paper #2 with some additional confirming or replicating data. What we’ve seen in the clinical trial world from respected scientists is more than enough justification for the hassle and stodginess of preregistration, ten times out of ten…

…and by the way, this is a line for all times, “Preregistration is the dream that one day, studies will be judged, not by the significance of their Results, but by the content of their Methods.”

“For Preregistration in Fundamental Research”
By Neuroskeptic | April 25, 2013 3:02 pm
The Black Swan-April 15 2013
By Sebastiaan Mathôt
The Black Swan (Taleb book)

Are we going to judge the success of Neuroscience on psychological criteria like the DSM-5?

Second brute descriptive example:
“A successfull intervention was obtained by a measure of rapid oxidation-the treatment of the patient resulted in a passive, easily managed state.”

“The Neuroscience of Free Will:
Disputed relevance of scientific research”
“Some thinkers like neuroscientist and philosopher Adina Roskies think these studies can still only show, unsurprisingly, that physical factors in the brain are involved before decision making. In contrast, Haggard believes that “We feel we choose, but we don’t”.[5] Researcher John-Dylan Haynes adds “How can I call a will ‘mine’ if I don’t even know when it occurred and what it has decided to do?”.[5] Philosophers Walter Glannon and Alfred Mele think some scientists are getting the science right, but misrepresenting modern philosophers. This is mainly because “free will” can mean many things: It is unclear what someone means when they say “free will does not exist”. Mele and Glannon say that the available research is more evidence against any dualistic notions of free will – but that is an “easy target for neuroscientists to knock down”.[5] Mele says that most discussions of free will are now had in materialistic terms. In these cases, “free will” means something more like “not coerced” or that “the person could have done otherwise at the last moment”. The existence of these types of free will is more debatable. Mele agrees, however, that science will continue to reveal critical details about what goes on in the brain during decision making.[5]

“[Some senses of free will] are compatible with what we are learning from science…If only that was what scientists were telling people. But scientists, especially in the last few years, have been on a rampage – writing ill-considered public pronouncements about free will which… verge on social irresponsibility.

-Daniel Dennett discussing science and free will[4]

This issue may be controversial for good reason: There is evidence to suggest that people normally associate a belief in free will with their ability to affect their lives.[1][2] Philosopher Daniel Dennett, author of Elbow Room and a supporter of deterministic free will, believes scientists risk making a serious mistake. He says that there are types of free will that are incompatible with modern science, but he says those kinds of free will are not worth wanting. Other types of “free will” are pivotal to people’s sense of responsibility and purpose (see also “believing in free will”), and many of these types are actually compatible with modern science.[4]

The other studies described below have only just begun to shed light on the role that consciousness plays in actions and it is too early to draw very strong conclusions about certain kinds of “free will”. It is worth noting that such experiments – so far – have dealt only with free will decisions made in short time frames (seconds) and may not have direct bearing on free will decisions made (“thoughtfully”) by the subject over the course of many seconds, minutes, hours or longer. Scientists have also only so far studied extremely simple behaviors (e.g. moving a finger).”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s