Announcing: Answers To Top 10 Questions About The Brain

Mr Michael Bibby s4032484 at
Tue Jul 1 22:26:44 EST 2003

>In article <bdr5ko$uoe$1 at>, Mr Michael Bibby
><s4032484 at> writes
>>>On 30 Jun 2003 06:25:07 GMT, "Mr Michael Bibby"
>>><s4032484 at> wrote:
>>>>>>More significantly - who *answered* the questions?
>>>>this, i believe is a good question. the fact that you have posted this website
>>>>means that you are making an 'appeal to authority'- therefore, it is perfectly
>>>>resonable to question the authority to which you appeal. i am my own authority
>>>>on all matters which i consider and gauge the varacity of the explainations
>>>>which are offered at this website to be of perfunctory stardard: i gauge these
>>>>'explainations' to be utterly vacuous and incommensurable, framed in a
>>>>theoretical framework which i couldnt possible accept.  you, on the other 
>>>>think differently, thats o.k., becuase this is your perogative. 
>>>No it does not. It means an appeal to reason. Engage that.
>>now were getting somewhere, i can smell a debate coming on. so the authority you
>>appeal to is *reason*! nothing is changed, my comments still stand to reason
>>because reason can only comprehend what she herself has brought forth according
>>to her design; like i said "i gauge these 'explainations' to be utterly vacuous
>>and incommensurable, framed in a theoretical framework which i couldnt possible
>>accept" i should like to add "becuase it is unreasonable". 
>>if you argue against me, then you are implying that you are more reasonable than
>>me! i am not arguing you here, i am merely expressing my point of view and as
>>far as i am concerned my point of view is not up for discussion!
>Yes - my point was that I'd expect the *answers* to come from experts in
>the appropriate fields of research, and I'd expect the material cited to
>be referenced. Otherwise the answers could just be cobbled together by
>yet another net "enthusiast".
>David Longley

i am inclined to engage you here, i feel that this is indeed a point of
contention. even if the answers were to come from so called *experts*, we must
then ask, "what are they experts of"- for example, a neuropsychologist is *NOT*
an expert on the neurological mechanisms underlying behaviour, a
neuropsychologist is an expert on the *practice* of nueropsychology- if you have
any questions concerning the *practice* of neuropsychology they would be the
person to talk to, they are experts on 'concrete puzzle-solutions' or
'exemplers' which function to define their normal puzzle-solving practice (this
is a reference to Kuhn's paradigm thesis). 

if i ask the question "what causes schitzophrenia?"- who should i ask? to what
authority do i appeal? i can easily ask a psychologists if i am interested in
there theories as to the psychogenic etiologies of the dissorder, i can appeal
to a neuropsychologist if i an interested in their theories as to the biogenic
etiologies of the dissorder, i can ask a sociobiologist if i want to know their
views on what predisposes the dissorder, i can also ask a bionomician
(ecologist) if i am interested in the stress-diathesis model of etiology and i
can even ask a priest if i am interested in other possible etiologies underlying
the dissorder: so, WHO IS THE EXPERT? they all have something different to say:
which one should i listen to? all of them? 

appeals to authority completely undermine the 'antiauthoritarian' principle of
science- this is perhaps one of the only 'principle' of science i emphatically
agree with. people are *always* telling me how they hate being forced feed
religion, having others impose their beliefs upon them: its funny how, for the
most part, the masses digest the palate of scientific knowledge without so much
as a wink of hesitation- personally, it sticks in my throught: i am my own
authority, this is my view and i wouldnt impose it upon anyone! 


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list