UK "Guardian" article attempts to refute Snyder
A UK Guardian article suggests
"Are we entering the era of the thinking cap – a device to supercharge our brains?" The answer, we would suggest, is a categorical no. Such speculations begin and end in the colourful realm of science fiction. But we are also in danger of entering the era of the "neuro-myth", where neuroscientists sensationalise and distort their own findings in the name of publicity".
This particular article seems to have been written by "real" neuroscientists. The limitations of neuroscience techniques presently available have frquently referred to on our website and on this blog. Reference 33 of my "Not Even Wrong - a view of current science of the mind" sums up a few views. e.g. some of those of Ed Vul and the eminent Nancy Kanwisher.
Jordan Grafman suggested to me, in an email discussion with me on rTMS in 2004, that direct current stimulation would be an interesting tool, especially where access to other similar techniques is not available. I'm sure he is right, but my rough studies have not so far come up with any truly positive results - so far. I think these matters may have to be 'crept up on', to use the phrase of Jeffrey Gray.
There could be, and probably is, a placebo effect, which may well have been noticed by Snyder.
Don't try this at home ? Yes, I suggest not trying tDCS or rTMS techniques at home, particularly not rTMS though homespun tDCS has not so far produced any strong negative responses that I am aware of, but 'ask your doctor first' and preferably do not do so - it will not help with study or passing exams, on present knowledge. Both of these methods can, in fact, be readily used at home but there seems no advantage in doing so wthout prior very good reason.
The articles concludes with "Our obsession with impact is not one-sided. The craving of scientists for publicity is fuelled by a hurried and unquestioning media, an academic community that disproportionately rewards publication in "high impact" journals such as Nature, and by research councils that emphasise the importance of achieving "impact" while at the same time delivering funding cuts".
That is very, very true, but I imagine the same response was made to the work of Copernicus. That is a matter which I refer to again in my resolution of the Andromeda paradox, found in "The Andromeda Paradox, Bricolage, and Perspectival Realism", also available as a PDF on my website.
"Are we entering the era of the thinking cap – a device to supercharge our brains?" The answer, we would suggest, is a categorical no. Such speculations begin and end in the colourful realm of science fiction. But we are also in danger of entering the era of the "neuro-myth", where neuroscientists sensationalise and distort their own findings in the name of publicity".
This particular article seems to have been written by "real" neuroscientists. The limitations of neuroscience techniques presently available have frquently referred to on our website and on this blog. Reference 33 of my "Not Even Wrong - a view of current science of the mind" sums up a few views. e.g. some of those of Ed Vul and the eminent Nancy Kanwisher.
Jordan Grafman suggested to me, in an email discussion with me on rTMS in 2004, that direct current stimulation would be an interesting tool, especially where access to other similar techniques is not available. I'm sure he is right, but my rough studies have not so far come up with any truly positive results - so far. I think these matters may have to be 'crept up on', to use the phrase of Jeffrey Gray.
There could be, and probably is, a placebo effect, which may well have been noticed by Snyder.
Don't try this at home ? Yes, I suggest not trying tDCS or rTMS techniques at home, particularly not rTMS though homespun tDCS has not so far produced any strong negative responses that I am aware of, but 'ask your doctor first' and preferably do not do so - it will not help with study or passing exams, on present knowledge. Both of these methods can, in fact, be readily used at home but there seems no advantage in doing so wthout prior very good reason.
The articles concludes with "Our obsession with impact is not one-sided. The craving of scientists for publicity is fuelled by a hurried and unquestioning media, an academic community that disproportionately rewards publication in "high impact" journals such as Nature, and by research councils that emphasise the importance of achieving "impact" while at the same time delivering funding cuts".
That is very, very true, but I imagine the same response was made to the work of Copernicus. That is a matter which I refer to again in my resolution of the Andromeda paradox, found in "The Andromeda Paradox, Bricolage, and Perspectival Realism", also available as a PDF on my website.
posted by uv at 7:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home