[from Ted Cloak (2012.12.29 2017 MST)]
Steven Pinker (How the Mind Works) uses the term "neophrenology" for the
kind of study criticized in this article. He's not being ironic.
As the article indicates, we can't understand how the brain mediates
behavior until we get from the magnifying glass to the electron microscope
level. As far as I know, HPCT is the only hypothesis going at that level.
It's too bad we have to wait for neuroscience to catch up.
Happy New Year, All!
[From Fred Nickols (2012.12.29.1907 AZ)]
Thanks for the link, Dag.
It's all in the timing. In 1870, the neuroscientists would have been on the
back of a horse-drawn wagon holding up small bottles of neuro-curo. They
would have had lots of takers. Today, they're on the back of a
computer-drawn wagon but they're still holding up small bottles of what we
finally came to call "snake oil." And, from the looks of it, they still
have plenty of takers. If they had really unraveled the mysteries of the
brain do you think they would publish their findings? I don't think so.
Fred (Read my mind if you can) Nickols
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Dag Forssell
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 6:40 PM
Subject: Neuroscience article in The New Yorker
From Dag Forssell (2012.12.29.1745 PST)
On December 3, I spotted a link to the attached article.
At the time, I could not post to CSGnet, but now that I found that I
want to forward it.
The link points to some 22 comments on the article.
Tom Bourbon told me years ago about the massaging going on to
standardize and tweak the pictures of brain scans so it appears they say
article sheds light that casts doubt on the entire enterprise.