3 ms·
I posted this because the theory has been making the rounds among neuroscientists. It came up in one of our lab meetings. And the context was provocative - brai
by robg 18y ago
I posted this because the theory has been making the rounds among neuroscientists. It came up in one of our lab meetings. And the context was provocative - brain activation patterns in neuroimaging studies of the two reflecting mirror images.
Still, I agree it's simplistic. Problem is, in order to be comprehensible to mere humans, theories can only be a tad complicated. Take two main effects with an interaction. That's hard enough. A three-way interaction is near impossible to talk about.
- gruseom 18y agoI didn't think you were endorsing the theory, and it was certainly worth posting. But the more I think about it the cruder it seems. I'm not sure what you mean by "mere humans", but unless it's "journalists and most of their readers", then I have to disagree. Theories are welcome to be quite a bit more complicated than this if they work. Take Maxwell's equations. Though "complicated" isn't the right word for something so elegant, they certainly encapsulate more than two or three "main effects".
- robg 18y agoBah, the limits of language. I should have said "mere neuroscientists". Maxwell had a Silver Hammer. Seriously, I agree with your criticism and your hopeful view of science. But even as Hodgkin-Huxley is elegant it's a long way from explaining how human thought and behavior arise from our wetware. We're likely to get many muddled theories in the near future. The best we can do is test them.
- gruseom 18y agoI think science is an art and not a science :)