Neuro-babble

By -


"When it comes to narratives, the brain seems to be the last province of the theoretician-charlatan. Add neurosomething to a field, and suddenly it rises in respectability and becomes more convincing as people now have the illusion of a strong causal link..." Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile, p. 351

Comments

  1. Scott10:18 PM

    I've noticed (especially since the coming of the internet) that there seems to be this periodic pushing of fad fields that we're all supposed to be really interested in if we want to be really cool and up on everything. Right now it seems to be neurology, AI, and space exploration. Not too long ago it was genetics, CSI-type stuff and psychological profiling.

    I've kind of wondered if there's not some conspiratorial element to this -- like there's some circle of elites or government agency (the BLS, maybe?) that decides "hmmm...? what should the little people be thinking about for the next few years, so they'll push their kids to study this stuff & we can flood the market with particular expertise?"

    Or something like that. I know there's supposed to be a BRAIN research initiative going on right now.

    Or maybe it's just random social cycles...

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more