5 ms·
My overall read on this article is that its claims are probably overconfident. Like, it seems interesting, but like she's seeing a few results and making big c
by aetherson 3y ago
My overall read on this article is that its claims are probably overconfident. Like, it seems interesting, but like she's seeing a few results and making big claims about how the cerebellum plays into overall cognition, and my general sense is that lots of humility is usually warranted here: that simple and decisive statements usually turn out to be riddled with provisos and unexplained behavior.
- HarHarVeryFunny 3y agoDid you also read the comment by Steve Byrens with his own theory on what the Cerebellum does, and the author's reply of "seems right" ?!
- danw1979 3y agoI missed this, but after reading Steve’s comment, I don’t see much in his “little time machine” theory of function that conflicts with the original article’s ideas, except on the classical conditioning point.
- TaupeRanger 3y agoYou are correct. We don't really know what's going on. Every claim can be met with an equally emphatic opposite claim with equally compelling evidence by someone cherry picking the "correct" studies and listening to the "correct" people. What we call neuroscience is still in a pre-Newtonian era.
- NalNezumi 3y agoAfter sharing this piece to a neuroscientist coworker, I got the same feedback. Interesting article, but should probably be taken with a grain of salt when the author interpolate from studies.