4 ms·

Shameless ad-hominem here, since there's not much to grab onto in that guy's argument: Be careful who you believe. This grumpy genetic determinist is clearly o

Shameless ad-hominem here, since there's not much to grab onto in that guy's argument: Be careful who you believe. This grumpy genetic determinist is clearly out of touch with an entire field of emerging research about the gut-brain axis. Apparently this guy you're quoting is also skeptical of epigenetic inheritance. (http://www.germlineexposures.org/blog/no-convincing-evidence-a-response-to-kevin-mitchells-reckless-attack-on-epigenetic-inheritance http://www.germlineexposures.org/blog/no-convincing-evidence...) Why should I listen to him again? He's hung up on finding a singular "actual mechanism" in a complex, nonlinear system? I know almost nothing about this guy but I suspect he's another a drug company biologist, desperately holding onto shattered dreams of genetic determinism.

moh_maya 8y ago
So, if you actually read the 3-4 blog articles [1,2,3,4,5] on epigenetics that he's written, I don't interpret them as him suggesting epigenetic changes do not occur. Rather, I think he is challenging the notion that epigenetic inheritance is the driver of / underlies behaviour change in mammals. I disagree with your assertion that he is skeptical of epigenetic inheritance. I think he's skeptical that epigenetic inheritance can drive multi-generational neuro / psychiatric behaviour change, which is a far more nuanced position to take. For instance, had you made the effort of actually checking his blog, [5] is a response to the article you linked / cited: To quote him: "So, in case I have come across as merely unpleasantly grumpy, let me spell out my general grounds for being skeptical of the claims of TGEI in mammals." And further, in the context of behaviours and neuro disorders, and their inheritance in humans. That's what he is commenting about. Not epigenetic inheritance in general. In as much as you didn't actually check his writings and painted his position with such a broad brush and value judgements, then yes. I would agree this was shameless and an ad-hominem attack indeed. Now, I don't know this guy. But his arguments, especially the lots of different ways in which biologists mis-interpret and mis-apply statistics rings true. His arguments are cogent, and his analysis reasonable and conservative. Which, in science (the conservative interpretation) is an excellent thing, IMO. So yes, I do choose to consider his opinion carefully. I think, in all this hype and buzz-wordy social media noise that appears to be driving everything including research and politics, it's important to identify and defend the voices that are saying, slow down, let's not read too much into these things yet; let's not get carried away. Jill Escher, whose article you linked to, is a lawyer by training. This guy is a neuro-biologist and a professor at Trinity College, Dublin. Who do you think has more credibility here? This suggests to me that you didn't even look the people you were citing up, or who you were criticising. Surely, you can do better? [1] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-1.html?spref=tw http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epige... [2] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-2.html?spref=tw http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epige... [3] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2014/04/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-3.html?spref=tw http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2014/04/the-trouble-with-epige... [4] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/05/grandmas-trauma-critical-appraisal-of.html?spref=tw http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/05/grandmas-trauma-critic... [5] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/07/calibrating-scientific-skepticism-wider.html?spref=tw%20%20%E2%80%8B http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/07/calibrating-scientific... [Edit: added excerpt and replaced "crap" with "noise"]

moh_maya 8y ago

So, if you actually read the 3-4 blog articles [1,2,3,4,5] on epigenetics that he's written, I don't interpret them as him suggesting epigenetic changes do not occur. Rather, I think he is challenging the notion that epigenetic inheritance is the driver of / underlies behaviour change in mammals. I disagree with your assertion that he is skeptical of epigenetic inheritance. I think he's skeptical that epigenetic inheritance can drive multi-generational neuro / psychiatric behaviour change, which is a far more nuanced position to take. For instance, had you made the effort of actually checking his blog, [5] is a response to the article you linked / cited: To quote him: "So, in case I have come across as merely unpleasantly grumpy, let me spell out my general grounds for being skeptical of the claims of TGEI in mammals." And further, in the context of behaviours and neuro disorders, and their inheritance in humans. That's what he is commenting about. Not epigenetic inheritance in general. In as much as you didn't actually check his writings and painted his position with such a broad brush and value judgements, then yes. I would agree this was shameless and an ad-hominem attack indeed. Now, I don't know this guy. But his arguments, especially the lots of different ways in which biologists mis-interpret and mis-apply statistics rings true. His arguments are cogent, and his analysis reasonable and conservative. Which, in science (the conservative interpretation) is an excellent thing, IMO. So yes, I do choose to consider his opinion carefully. I think, in all this hype and buzz-wordy social media noise that appears to be driving everything including research and politics, it's important to identify and defend the voices that are saying, slow down, let's not read too much into these things yet; let's not get carried away. Jill Escher, whose article you linked to, is a lawyer by training. This guy is a neuro-biologist and a professor at Trinity College, Dublin. Who do you think has more credibility here? This suggests to me that you didn't even look the people you were citing up, or who you were criticising. Surely, you can do better? [1] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-1.html?spref=tw http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epige... [2] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-2.html?spref=tw http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epige... [3] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2014/04/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-3.html?spref=tw http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2014/04/the-trouble-with-epige... [4] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/05/grandmas-trauma-critical-appraisal-of.html?spref=tw http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/05/grandmas-trauma-critic... [5] http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/07/calibrating-scientific-skepticism-wider.html?spref=tw%20%20%E2%80%8B http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2018/07/calibrating-scientific... [Edit: added excerpt and replaced "crap" with "noise"]