[MD] Reductionism

[MarshaV]

Greetings Krimel,


At 01:18 PM 6/16/2009, you wrote:
> > >Krimel:
> > >We know that emotions are localized in the brain in the evolutionarily
> > >significant parts of the midbrain where they are found in most mammals.
> > >We also know that humans have evolved large areas in both hemispheres of
> > >the brain that give us rational thought. Those areas in the neo-cortex
> > >work for us by combining inputs from all over the brain. They allow us to
>
> > >access our senses and our memories and to compare the past with the
> > >present. The net effect is to help us rationally decide whether to go
> > >with our automatic habits or our emotional inclinations or to come up
> > >with something completely novel. It isn't emotions or rational thought
> > > broken into pieces that matters it is the integration and synthesis of
> > > this different modalities that get us through the night.
> >
> >Marsha
> >I am curious about your use of the word 'We'.  Who is this 'we'.  In
> >what group are you including yourself?  Do you mean you, a
> >neuroscientist, and your colleagues, or you, a plumber, and your
> >barber?   Where did you learn this information?  Unless you've been
> >conducting the actual experiments and can give a firsthand account,
> >maybe you can point to the source of the information.
> >
> >
> >[Krimel]
> >We?
> >I thought I was talking about the human family. By "we" I mean anyone with
> >a brain sufficiently complex to access the intellectual level via the
> >internet.
> >
> >If you need references:
> >
> >Here is a great place to start:
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5nMsXg1Lk
> >
> >For more detail
> >http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Brain-and-Cognitive-Sciences/9-01Fall-2003/Course
>H
> >ome/index.htm
> >
> >These lectures are extraordinarily rich in information but the lecturer
> >takes some getting used to. He has a boring voice but if you get past that
> >his explanations of brain lesion study is quite good.
> >
> > >From the Teaching Company Robert Sapolsky has a set of lectures on
> >neuroscience and behavior that are quite good. He is an excellent lecturer.
> >These would be better to start with. But the MIT lectures are free,
> >
> >Also, as always, it is hard to beat Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink"
> >
> >Right now I am reading Jonah Lehrer's "How We Decide" it is easy reading
>and
> >somewhat like "Blink"
> >
> >There is a great series from the BBC call the "Secret life of the Brain."
> >You can maybe find parts of it on Youtube. Also while you are looking there
> >is a series by Robert Winston from BBC called "The Human Brain" which is
> >good and he also has a longer series on "The Human Body" which is
> >extraordinary.
> >
> >V R Ramachandran's Phantoms in the Brain is really good. I would say mind
> >blowing. Here is Part 1 you are on your own for Part 2.
> >http://www.guba.com/watch/2000937292
>
>Marsha:
>
>I've complained to you about this in the past.  You talk as if you
>have great knowledge backed by the authority of Science.  As if the
>implication of your scientific point-of-view lends automatic
>credibility to your stories.  It does not.  Just like in the field of
>QM there are most likely opposing views which you never
>mention.  And, as the Science Wars brought to light, there are some
>inherent problems with the scientific method and scientific knowledge
>in general.  Both The Teaching Company's course, 'Science Wars: What
>Scientists Know and How They Know It' and the CBC's IDEAS Series "How
>To Think About Science" document many of the problems.  Because of
>the technical nature of science, which is constantly changing and
>being challeged, you should definitely site sources so the validity
>of such claims may be checked and alternative evidence and views may
>be investigated.
>
>There's also the fact that you are an anonymous avatar with nothing
>to lose.  You can say whatever and if called on it, there's no skin
>off your back.  So have some consideration for we mere mortals who
>actually have "skin in the game".
>
>Thank you for the additional information.  I'll check it out.
>
>[Krimel]
>I was trying to think of a word that captured my reaction to this comment of
>yours. Ludicrous was the only thing that came to mind. This is not an
>academic forum. Are you proposing hence forth that everyone here submit an
>annotated bibliography with every post?

No, I am not.  But if you are going to represent yourself as a 
spokesman for "the human family" and its scientific knowledge, you 
should supply more than a nice story.  Scientific knowledge, as I 
mentioned previously, is volatile and scientist are often, as you 
mentioned, "unable to come to a consensus on the meaning".



>I really don't think there was anything in my original comment that is even
>mildly controversial. If you do, then either ask a specific question or
>frickin' Google it. Look it up for yourself. This is a forum about ideas,
>concepts. Those ideas and concepts either work for you or they don't. You
>can say why they don't work or propose alternate concepts but those ideas do
>not stand or fall on the basis of who said them. As far as I can tell there
>is no skin and no game here. Everything is entirely in black and white,
>shapes on a white screen; unless of course you have your default fonts set
>to some other color.

You present specialized scientific information as though you were an 
expert and the information is established fact to a group of 
non-experts and then expect non-experts to chase down the accuracy of 
your propositions.  It's a tactic; you are mostly bluster.


Marsha










_____________

"He who neglects the present moment throws away all he has."
   (Friedrich von Schiller)