[from Tracy Harms (19990314.0900 Pacific)]
Sometimes I come into contact with the wider world of biological research.
I've kept some skepticism toward the orthodox PCT notion that researchers
are, by and large, operating from behaviorist or otherwise
environmentally-causal models. But when I find specific papers that work
in that framework most blatently, I become more settled in that orthodoxy
myself. The latest example is in the current issue of Nature. I've given
the reference below, and I'll be happy to forward the abstract to any who
request it. Perhaps it would be just as well to post it here, but I
wouldn't want to disturb anybody's good digestion.
The most galling thing to me about this particular instance of research is
the combination of high-precision equipment, high-prestige gobbledegook
writing, and numbskull theoretic presumptions. They collide to produce
conclusions such as this: "Dopamine may therefore be a neural substrate
for novelty or reward expectation rather than reward itself."
Translation: "We thought dopamine was the reward in a stimulus-response
system. It isn't. We may now go seek out what the true reward is." What
they have helped refute, of course, is the notion that *any* substances
within a living system stand as rewards. Instead of rejecting the wider
theory of behavior-by-reward, however, they're off on another snark hunt.
This is the paper in question:
Garris, P. A., Kilpatrick, M., Bunin, M. A., Michael, D., Walker, Q. D., &
Wrightman, R. M. (1999). Dissociation of dopamine release in the nucleus
accumbens from intracranial self-stimulation. Nature, 398, 67-69.
T. Harms
[From Rick Marken (990314.1730)]
Tracy Harms (19990314.0900 Pacific) --
Sometimes I come into contact with the wider world of biological
research. I've kept some skepticism toward the orthodox PCT notion
that researchers are, by and large, operating from behaviorist or
otherwise environmentally-causal models. But when I find specific
papers that work in that framework most blatently, I become more
settled in that orthodoxy myself. The latest example is in the
current issue of Nature...
The most galling thing to me about this particular instance of
research is the combination of high-precision equipment,
high-prestige gobbledegook writing, and numbskull theoretic
presumptions.
Thanks, Tracy. I take this as a vote of support for what must seem
like a dogmatic inability on my part to see anything of value in
most conventional life and social science research. You also do an
excellent job of describing what it is about this research that
galls me too. Indeed, when I feel my gall level getting a little
below my reference I just pop over to the American Psychological
Association (APA) journals site at
click on any of the journal categories (like "Basic Research"),
click on one of the journals in that category and then take a
look at the abstracts of articles in the most recent issue of
that journal by clicking on "Current Issue Table of Contents".
I think you will find plenty of articles that meet your (and my)
gall requirements:a combination of "high-precision equipment, high-
prestige gobbledegook writing, and numbskull theoretic presumptions".
Best
Rick
ยทยทยท
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates e-mail: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken/