3 ms·
The study[1] mentioned in the guardian does not contain the phrase "epigenetic memory", and only contains the word memory twice, and both uses are of the conven
by ch4s3 2y ago
The study[1] mentioned in the guardian does not contain the phrase "epigenetic memory", and only contains the word memory twice, and both uses are of the conventional definition. The author in the guardian is misrepresenting the science.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923835/
- giantg2 2y agoI agree that the article is garage. The point of contention is around epigenetic memory being a thing or not. It is a common term used in the domain, such as in this paper and others. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7225062/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7225062/
- ch4s3 2y agoYou could probably replace the word memory in that paper with maguffin and not change the meaning. It's totally unconnected to the common definition or the use in neurology. I guess what I'm getting at is that this kind of reporting obscures what's going on intentionally for the political aims of the guardian. Which I think is lousy.
- giantg2 2y agoYes, and that's true of computer "memory" as well.
- moralestapia 2y ago>what's going on intentionally for the political aims of the guardian Ok, now this is something! So, please enlighten me, what could be the political agenda being pushed by an article pondering around whether memories can be inherited or not?
- ch4s3 2y agoVague notions of "inherited trauma" are a regular hobby horse of people in the broader political sphere of the guardian at the moment.