Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does science have a liberal bias? [View all]bananas
(27,509 posts)12. Yup - current example: major shift in neuroscience going on right now.
Posted in Good Reads last month: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016120002
http://bjoern.brembs.net/2015/03/watching-a-paradigm-shift-in-neuroscience/
Watching a paradigm shift in neuroscience
by Björn Brembs, March 26
When I finished my PhD 15 years ago, the neurosciences defined the main function of brains in terms of processing input to compute output: brain function is ultimately best understood in terms of input/output transformations and how they are produced wrote Mike Mauk in 2000. Since then, a lot of things have been discovered that make this stimulus-response concept untenable and potentially based largely on laboratory artifacts.
For instance, it was discovered that the likely ancestral state of behavioral organization is one of probing the environment with ongoing, variable actions first and evaluating sensory feedback later (i.e., the inverse of stimulus response).
<snip>
As one would expect, this dramatic shift in perspectives from input/output to output/input has led to a slew of recent publications which were not thinkable a mere 15 years ago.
<snip>
In the most recent annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, where I usually only find very few presentations on ongoing activity and how it leads to variability, there now were several posters on exactly this topic, seemingly out of nowhere.
<snip>
Watching a paradigm shift in neuroscience
by Björn Brembs, March 26
When I finished my PhD 15 years ago, the neurosciences defined the main function of brains in terms of processing input to compute output: brain function is ultimately best understood in terms of input/output transformations and how they are produced wrote Mike Mauk in 2000. Since then, a lot of things have been discovered that make this stimulus-response concept untenable and potentially based largely on laboratory artifacts.
For instance, it was discovered that the likely ancestral state of behavioral organization is one of probing the environment with ongoing, variable actions first and evaluating sensory feedback later (i.e., the inverse of stimulus response).
<snip>
As one would expect, this dramatic shift in perspectives from input/output to output/input has led to a slew of recent publications which were not thinkable a mere 15 years ago.
<snip>
In the most recent annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, where I usually only find very few presentations on ongoing activity and how it leads to variability, there now were several posters on exactly this topic, seemingly out of nowhere.
<snip>
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
47 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Some can't separate bad business practices and the science involved in those businesses.
NuclearDem
May 2015
#1
Science has a liberal bias in that only liberals believe in science. Remember, science hasn't proven
okaawhatever
May 2015
#6
Alas, humans do not and even assuming honesty (a big assumption, at that) accuracy is another issue.
Nuclear Unicorn
May 2015
#13
Unless "science" has at some point been proven to be infallible, "scientific consensus" seems to be
cherokeeprogressive
May 2015
#9
"Science" (whatever amorphous entity that refers to) has never been said to be infallible.
NuclearDem
May 2015
#16
No matter how good The Scientific Method is, it can be subverted by just about anyone.
cherokeeprogressive
May 2015
#46
I think the left invokes science when it helps and ignores it when it doesn't.
HereSince1628
May 2015
#22
I don't know, but do know that DU's resident scientists are arrogantly biased.
closeupready
May 2015
#25
People who are only interested in using the word "science" as a rhetorical bludgeon should probably
Chathamization
May 2015
#45