the liver and the brain

David Longley David at longley.demon.co.uk
Thu Sep 2 17:51:50 EST 2004


In article <4gsej05e3mp2jgdii2fqsm3m2di9mil1b7 at 4ax.com>, Traveler 
<traveler at nospam.com> writes
>In article <aNudsENK12NBFwUm at longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
><David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <j5oej0lbapom8t1kucncb927hbn2ivs4iq at 4ax.com>, Traveler
>><traveler at nospam.com> writes
>>>In article <zv63kZKYr1NBFwjh at longley.demon.co.uk>, David Longley
>>><David at longley.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'll say it again - you are neglecting what research in neuroscience is
>>>>and always has been dependent upon - the careful management and
>>>>measurement of *behaviour*.
>>>
>>>If, by behavior, you mean the observable external behavior of the
>>>organism whose nervous system is being examined, I have to disagree. A
>>>lot of research in neuroscience is not at all dependent on external
>>>behavior. Heck, a lot of it is conducted in vitro. But if you mean the
>>>internal behavior (input/output, action potentials) of single neurons
>>>or even cell assemblies, I agree that neuroscience is dependent on
>>>behavior in this general sense of the term. But then again, very few
>>>fields of science are exempt from this general rule.
>>>
>>>Louis Savain
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
>>>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html
>>>
>>>The Silver Bullet or How to Solve the Software Crisis:
>>>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm
>>
>>You clearly (and arrogantly) don't understand (it isn't a matter of you
>>agreeing or not). The 'in vitro' work is just as much an application of
>>the extensional stance as the 'in vivo' behavioural work.
>
>You are a shining example of folk psychology, Longley. Here is what
>you wrote:
>
>>I'll say it again - you are neglecting what research in neuroscience is
>>and always has been dependent upon - the careful management and
>>measurement of *behaviour*.
>
>Don't wriggle your way out of it, you pompous ass. How are in vitro
>experiments dependent on the measurement of behavior?
>
What do you think researchers are writing about when they report what 
they have done in such experiments? How do you think their reports are 
related to the rest of the web of research evidence within the field 
they're contributing to? My experience is that few outside these fields 
can really tell because they aren't privy to the language game - ie they 
don't know what's actually *done*.

Take a routine example. Say someone stereotaxically infuses a toxin into 
some region of the brain and subsequently sections the brain, examines 
it histologically (for cannula placement) and homogenizes selective 
areas prior to HPLC or otherwise assaying them. This all depends on lots 
of in vitro work. It therefore requires quite a lot of detailed CNS 
anatomical knowledge (to know where to put the cannula), knowledge of 
neurochemistry and pharmacology (to know what toxins to use and where) 
and that's before you use the dentist drill!. Then there's the 
behavioural experiment (which most people don't seem to grasp because it 
requires almost extra-terrestrial expertise it would seem) then there's 
more in vitro post-mortem assays (more biochemistry) and relating the 
results of all that (usually multiple samples from known areas of 
innervation to assay just how accurate/discrete your lesions were) to 
the results of the behavioural data.

The point which is easily/frequently missed what's fundamental to all of 
science, and which makes behavioural work paramount. What's critical is 
the accurate reporting of one's own behaviour (ie what the researcher 
actually does or what others have done that s/he relies upon to do what 
s/he does). This is the point that I've been making. This is, at root, 
the extensional stance, and it's why behaviour analysis is *so* 
fundamental as I have frequently said.

To better appreciate why, you'd probably have to read some of the 
material I've written elsewhere.

>> On the other
>>hand, the nonsense that you provide links to clearly is not.
>
>Your opinion about my site matters to me because...?

Because I've explained why what you're doing is *fundamentally* 
misguided and you'd be wise to find out why.

>
>>Try to grasp what's being said and learn from it rather than just
>>idiotically presuming.
>
>Try to write what you mean rather than just idiotically presuming that
>people should read something other than what you write.

I'm advising not presuming. That's all I can do. Believe  it or not, I'm 
really trying to be helpful.

>
>And one more thing, Longley. Pack it up your ass. :-D
>
>Louis Savain
>
>Artificial Intelligence From the Bible:
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Seven/bible.html
>
>The Silver Bullet or How to Solve the Software Crisis:
>http://users.adelphia.net/~lilavois/Cosas/Reliability.htm

-- 
David Longley



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list