4 ms·

Meh. I always hate these articles about neuroscientists having non-ordinary experiences. Either heterophenomenology is valid or it isn't, whether or not you're

Meh. I always hate these articles about neuroscientists having non-ordinary experiences. Either heterophenomenology is valid or it isn't, whether or not you're a neuroscientist should be largely irrelevant. If her training as a neuroscientist was providing some sort of special insight into her subjective experiences then that would be one thing, but that's never actually the case with these articles, other than intermittently having some basic awareness of what might be going on. By privileging the experiences of people whose backgrounds don't have any real epistemological relevancy, I feel like these articles epitomize the hegemonic aspects of science, which is troubling on multiple levels.

emodendroket 11y ago
...Huh?
vixen99 11y ago
Thanks! In future I'm sure we'll all be extra careful to run checks ensuring folks' backgrounds have real epistemological relevancy before privileging their experiences in publication.
lliamander 11y ago
Agreed. I find her experiences interesting, but there really isn't anything in her description that is novel when compared to a "lay" person's description. Metaphors are always a bit tricky, but you might say it's like someone asking a computer hardware engineer how to use software on their computer[1]. Perhaps this experience did give her some new insight, but if so it was more contextual and related specifically to her work, rather than a general insight into human nature. Of course, it is good for people to share these kinds of experiences, but we should ask ourselves why it matters to us that it was a scientist who experienced them. The special status of science comes directly from the fact that it relies on objective observation and experimentation rather than subjective experience, consensus, or authority. Emphasizing any of the latter three simply because they come from scientists, suggests that we are trying to treat science as a priesthood, rather than addressing it on its own terms. It also means we've given "science", as a social institution, more power than it merits. [1]http://xkcd.com/1588/ http://xkcd.com/1588/
- Alex3917 11y ago
  Exactly. I feel like these sorts of things generally fuel systemic racism and oppression, which is why I try to point them out when I see them. (Even if most other people give me shit for it.)
  - lliamander 11y ago
    My concern comes more from the angle of scientific integrity rather than systematic oppression, but I thought your point was sound and it made me ask myself "why do we, as readers, care that this subjective experience comes from a scientist?".
nkurz 11y ago
I have almost the opposite reaction to it. As an article designed for an educated but non-scientific audience, it's only nominally about neuroscience, but really about conceptions of self. I think the point of the article is that despite considering herself an expert, she has no particular insight into her own disease. This is intended as a parable for other experts, suggesting that they may be wiser to trust in the collective wisdom of others rather than assuming they understand the world better than others. It's not quite an anti-science article, but it seeks to "cut science down to size", by (correctly) showing that its practitioners are all too fallible and human. What are the specific ways in which you find it troubling?
- Alex3917 11y ago
  I suppose this isn't as egregious as, say, some guy writing a book saying that God is real because of a dream he had and you should totally believe him because he's an MD. That said, what's to say that her experiences (which perhaps highlight the limits of science) are more valid than anyone else's experiences which do the same. The reason I find it troubling is because it fits into a multi-hundred year paradigm of, say, indigenous people not being believed about their medical knowledge until some white guy flies down to South America and puts his stamp of approval on it. Or, say, some western religious studies scholars flying to Japan and teaching them what their religious beliefs really are, or whatever. I'm all for experts when they have real expertise and something to add. But what I find troubling is when a supposed lack of credentials is used to systematically invalidate the knowledge and experiences of certain groups of people, especially when those credentials have no actual relevance to the issue(s) at hand.
  - im3w1l 11y ago
    There were a lot of false indigenous beliefs. If people just listened to some random native dude and took his stories at face value, they would have been convinced of a lot of wrongness. Basically you need a big institution that can exert quality control over issued statements. Not necessarily a white one.
    - 11y ago
hmahncke 11y ago
I feel like these articles de-epitomize the hegemonic aspects of science, by pointing out that perceived epistemological relevancy does not contribute to actual real-world utility.

emodendroket 11y ago

...Huh?

vixen99 11y ago

Thanks! In future I'm sure we'll all be extra careful to run checks ensuring folks' backgrounds have real epistemological relevancy before privileging their experiences in publication.

lliamander 11y ago

Agreed. I find her experiences interesting, but there really isn't anything in her description that is novel when compared to a "lay" person's description. Metaphors are always a bit tricky, but you might say it's like someone asking a computer hardware engineer how to use software on their computer[1]. Perhaps this experience did give her some new insight, but if so it was more contextual and related specifically to her work, rather than a general insight into human nature. Of course, it is good for people to share these kinds of experiences, but we should ask ourselves why it matters to us that it was a scientist who experienced them. The special status of science comes directly from the fact that it relies on objective observation and experimentation rather than subjective experience, consensus, or authority. Emphasizing any of the latter three simply because they come from scientists, suggests that we are trying to treat science as a priesthood, rather than addressing it on its own terms. It also means we've given "science", as a social institution, more power than it merits. [1]http://xkcd.com/1588/ http://xkcd.com/1588/

Alex3917 11y ago
Exactly. I feel like these sorts of things generally fuel systemic racism and oppression, which is why I try to point them out when I see them. (Even if most other people give me shit for it.)
- lliamander 11y ago
  My concern comes more from the angle of scientific integrity rather than systematic oppression, but I thought your point was sound and it made me ask myself "why do we, as readers, care that this subjective experience comes from a scientist?".

nkurz 11y ago

I have almost the opposite reaction to it. As an article designed for an educated but non-scientific audience, it's only nominally about neuroscience, but really about conceptions of self. I think the point of the article is that despite considering herself an expert, she has no particular insight into her own disease. This is intended as a parable for other experts, suggesting that they may be wiser to trust in the collective wisdom of others rather than assuming they understand the world better than others. It's not quite an anti-science article, but it seeks to "cut science down to size", by (correctly) showing that its practitioners are all too fallible and human. What are the specific ways in which you find it troubling?

Alex3917 11y ago
I suppose this isn't as egregious as, say, some guy writing a book saying that God is real because of a dream he had and you should totally believe him because he's an MD. That said, what's to say that her experiences (which perhaps highlight the limits of science) are more valid than anyone else's experiences which do the same. The reason I find it troubling is because it fits into a multi-hundred year paradigm of, say, indigenous people not being believed about their medical knowledge until some white guy flies down to South America and puts his stamp of approval on it. Or, say, some western religious studies scholars flying to Japan and teaching them what their religious beliefs really are, or whatever. I'm all for experts when they have real expertise and something to add. But what I find troubling is when a supposed lack of credentials is used to systematically invalidate the knowledge and experiences of certain groups of people, especially when those credentials have no actual relevance to the issue(s) at hand.
- im3w1l 11y ago
  There were a lot of false indigenous beliefs. If people just listened to some random native dude and took his stories at face value, they would have been convinced of a lot of wrongness. Basically you need a big institution that can exert quality control over issued statements. Not necessarily a white one.
  - 11y ago

hmahncke 11y ago

I feel like these articles de-epitomize the hegemonic aspects of science, by pointing out that perceived epistemological relevancy does not contribute to actual real-world utility.