3 ms·

You know I'm getting really tired of people misrepresenting what I said by interjecting a question that had nothing to do with what I was saying. My point was t

You know I'm getting really tired of people misrepresenting what I said by interjecting a question that had nothing to do with what I was saying. My point was the brain is more interconnected than people admit and of course if you mess with some parts of it you are going to get impaired functioning. How is this research? Take a really complicated biological system and deactivate some part and observe the cascade. I expect more from people with a Ph.D. getting millions of dollars in funding. You don't need a theory to do this kind of research. All you need are some fancy toys.

cj 17y ago
By your philosophy, we should abandon research on the brain because its complexity is overwhelming. The PhD's that you are undermining are not intimidated by its complexity, and are trying to better understand functioning within the brain. Bottom line. In my opinion, that is respectable and worth the effort. The better question is: In your opinion, how could research on the brain be improved? How should it be performed? Do you believe research on the brain should be encouraged?
- greenlblue 17y ago
  What philosophy? You read 3 of my sentences and extrapolate a philosophy? Intimidated Ph.D's? You still haven't addressed the fact that a powerful magnet is being pointed at an extremely complicated, interconnected, biological system in order to hamper its functions. Ya, I understand that on some tests people are going to perform worse because a powerful magnet is messing with their brain. Is that surprising? No. I would even expect it. Any layman would. I believe in clearly delineated research objectives backed by solid scientific theory and not some toy project that messes with electrical currents in the brain jazzed up by moral and ethical philosophy.
  - corruption 17y ago
    You assert that this research is just "a toy project that messes with electrical currents in the brain jazzed up by moral and ethical philosophy". Where is your evidence that it isn't "clearly delineated research objectives backed by solid scientific theory"? Surely, occams razor suggests to me that people actively researching in the field aren't complete morons, and have some idea of what they are doing relative to someone who (assumingly) has no experience in this field. What evidence do you have for your conclusions?

cj 17y ago

By your philosophy, we should abandon research on the brain because its complexity is overwhelming. The PhD's that you are undermining are not intimidated by its complexity, and are trying to better understand functioning within the brain. Bottom line. In my opinion, that is respectable and worth the effort. The better question is: In your opinion, how could research on the brain be improved? How should it be performed? Do you believe research on the brain should be encouraged?

greenlblue 17y ago
What philosophy? You read 3 of my sentences and extrapolate a philosophy? Intimidated Ph.D's? You still haven't addressed the fact that a powerful magnet is being pointed at an extremely complicated, interconnected, biological system in order to hamper its functions. Ya, I understand that on some tests people are going to perform worse because a powerful magnet is messing with their brain. Is that surprising? No. I would even expect it. Any layman would. I believe in clearly delineated research objectives backed by solid scientific theory and not some toy project that messes with electrical currents in the brain jazzed up by moral and ethical philosophy.
- corruption 17y ago
  You assert that this research is just "a toy project that messes with electrical currents in the brain jazzed up by moral and ethical philosophy". Where is your evidence that it isn't "clearly delineated research objectives backed by solid scientific theory"? Surely, occams razor suggests to me that people actively researching in the field aren't complete morons, and have some idea of what they are doing relative to someone who (assumingly) has no experience in this field. What evidence do you have for your conclusions?