4 ms·

"As neuroscientists, we believe that nothing could be further from the truth. We know that the developing brain is very malleable. We believe that the differenc

"As neuroscientists, we believe that nothing could be further from the truth. We know that the developing brain is very malleable. We believe that the differences we reported are largely the result of experience, and have every reason to believe that by changing those experiences—through preventive measures or interventions—we can change children’s trajectories for the better" That's an awful lot of belief and very little inquiry concerning the genetics behind results as reported.

danharaj 11y ago
Neuroscientists also believe that all mental behavior can be correlated with physical processes, but you will not see this belief justified every time it is brought up. In research level geometry you will not see the definition of manifold in the preamble of every paper, nor will you see a reference for each standard theorem used. All domain experts have knowledge which they do not attempt to justify to other domain experts, and someone on the outside looking in cannot readily discern what is widely-held and justified knowledge and what is widely-held but unjustified knowledge. It gets even worse actually. Every scientific discipline has "folklore": Results commonly known by experts but not organized for pedagogical purposes anywhere. Unpublished theses, coffee table discussions, lecture notes that are distributed in private, etc. So even if one knows where to look in the literature to find evidence for a claim, it might not even be there. One may have to talk to an expert directly.
scott_s 11y ago
The preceding question mentioned an experiment they are running which can help test this belief. I think you're not giving the authors enough credit by not mentioning that they clearly understand their beliefs have not been tested: "The only way to really test that is to move beyond correlational studies and conduct experiments. I’m part of a team of social scientists and neuroscientists from around the country who are planning to do just that: We’re currently fundraising for and piloting the first clinical trial of poverty reduction."

danharaj 11y ago

Neuroscientists also believe that all mental behavior can be correlated with physical processes, but you will not see this belief justified every time it is brought up. In research level geometry you will not see the definition of manifold in the preamble of every paper, nor will you see a reference for each standard theorem used. All domain experts have knowledge which they do not attempt to justify to other domain experts, and someone on the outside looking in cannot readily discern what is widely-held and justified knowledge and what is widely-held but unjustified knowledge. It gets even worse actually. Every scientific discipline has "folklore": Results commonly known by experts but not organized for pedagogical purposes anywhere. Unpublished theses, coffee table discussions, lecture notes that are distributed in private, etc. So even if one knows where to look in the literature to find evidence for a claim, it might not even be there. One may have to talk to an expert directly.

scott_s 11y ago

The preceding question mentioned an experiment they are running which can help test this belief. I think you're not giving the authors enough credit by not mentioning that they clearly understand their beliefs have not been tested: "The only way to really test that is to move beyond correlational studies and conduct experiments. I’m part of a team of social scientists and neuroscientists from around the country who are planning to do just that: We’re currently fundraising for and piloting the first clinical trial of poverty reduction."