4 ms·

I don't deny that neuroscientists will discover something big in the future; I'm just saying that people should stop expecting that the next breakthrough will c

I don't deny that neuroscientists will discover something big in the future; I'm just saying that people should stop expecting that the next breakthrough will come from crude tools such as EEGs and fMRI, at least in conjunction with present-day computational power and statistical sophistication. These tools are useful enough without assigning an aura of metaphysical power to them; as things stand, billions of dollars are being wasted on adding noise, and what's worse is that the field has a track record of nefarious applications[0]. You could argue that the latter are not the scientists' fault, but if we keep promoting grandstanding pseudoscience for no clear reason, it's only a matter of time before somebody with both power and ill will is going to use it to harm people, all the while purporting to act in the name of "science." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology#Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology#Racism

mike_d 3y ago
> I'm just saying that people should stop expecting that the next breakthrough will come from crude tools such as EEGs and fMRI Scurvy killed over two million people until we figured out the solution was simply eating an orange. We won't know if EEGs and MRIs are core to future technology until we have that breakthrough.
- C-x_C-f 3y ago
  I'm not sure I follow; by the same argument, measuring bumps on people's skulls can't be ruled out as not crucial to future science since it hasn't yielded a breakthrough yet. The merits of a scientific methodology cannot possibly depend on the small chance that some hitherto unsuccessful approach might result in an unexpected breakthrough. Aside from the fact that anything might hold the key to the next big thing, such an approach would inevitably end up following whims and fashions more so than robust and sound scientific reasoning. All else being the same, priority should be given to research which is grounded in solid experiment design and a firm grasp on statistic.
  - mike_d 3y ago
    > All else being the same, priority should be given to research which is grounded in solid experiment design and a firm grasp on statistic. Agencies like DARPA exist primarily to counter this line of thinking. We built the atomic bomb by building a bunch of facilities out in the middle of nowhere and letting scientists just kind of make it up as they went along. I hope you genuinely understand the difference between measuring bumps on ones head and well established scientific instruments that allow you to take measurements inside the body. MRIs are not some sort of witchcraft that should be distrusted.
    - C-x_C-f 3y ago
      > We built the atomic bomb by building a bunch of facilities out in the middle of nowhere and letting scientists just kind of make it up as they went along. Physics in the years leading up to WWII had reached levels of accuracy and predictive power never before seen, so I think this example supports my argument if anything. Also the team there did not "just kind of make it up;" sure, they followed a relatively unconstrained creative process, but the foundations they were building upon were astoundingly firm. > I hope you genuinely understand the difference between measuring bumps on ones head and well established scientific instruments that allow you to take measurements inside the body. MRIs are not some sort of witchcraft that should be distrusted. I understand the difference, I was using skull bumps to prove my point by way of contradiction. I also understand the usefulness of MRIs. I'm just saying that they are useful within a certain domain, and cognitive science falls outside of that domain to a large extent (certainly to a much larger extent than sensationalistic pop-sci publications would have you believe).
babyshake 3y ago
It does seem reasonable that EEG can be used for a very, very crude type of mind reading. I believe it can show that you are in REM sleep or not in REM sleep, for example.

mike_d 3y ago

> I'm just saying that people should stop expecting that the next breakthrough will come from crude tools such as EEGs and fMRI Scurvy killed over two million people until we figured out the solution was simply eating an orange. We won't know if EEGs and MRIs are core to future technology until we have that breakthrough.

C-x_C-f 3y ago
I'm not sure I follow; by the same argument, measuring bumps on people's skulls can't be ruled out as not crucial to future science since it hasn't yielded a breakthrough yet. The merits of a scientific methodology cannot possibly depend on the small chance that some hitherto unsuccessful approach might result in an unexpected breakthrough. Aside from the fact that anything might hold the key to the next big thing, such an approach would inevitably end up following whims and fashions more so than robust and sound scientific reasoning. All else being the same, priority should be given to research which is grounded in solid experiment design and a firm grasp on statistic.
- mike_d 3y ago
  > All else being the same, priority should be given to research which is grounded in solid experiment design and a firm grasp on statistic. Agencies like DARPA exist primarily to counter this line of thinking. We built the atomic bomb by building a bunch of facilities out in the middle of nowhere and letting scientists just kind of make it up as they went along. I hope you genuinely understand the difference between measuring bumps on ones head and well established scientific instruments that allow you to take measurements inside the body. MRIs are not some sort of witchcraft that should be distrusted.
  - C-x_C-f 3y ago
    > We built the atomic bomb by building a bunch of facilities out in the middle of nowhere and letting scientists just kind of make it up as they went along. Physics in the years leading up to WWII had reached levels of accuracy and predictive power never before seen, so I think this example supports my argument if anything. Also the team there did not "just kind of make it up;" sure, they followed a relatively unconstrained creative process, but the foundations they were building upon were astoundingly firm. > I hope you genuinely understand the difference between measuring bumps on ones head and well established scientific instruments that allow you to take measurements inside the body. MRIs are not some sort of witchcraft that should be distrusted. I understand the difference, I was using skull bumps to prove my point by way of contradiction. I also understand the usefulness of MRIs. I'm just saying that they are useful within a certain domain, and cognitive science falls outside of that domain to a large extent (certainly to a much larger extent than sensationalistic pop-sci publications would have you believe).

babyshake 3y ago

It does seem reasonable that EEG can be used for a very, very crude type of mind reading. I believe it can show that you are in REM sleep or not in REM sleep, for example.