I am sorry, Glen. We would simply need to disagree on cognitive
neuroscience. It is the recent shift to "cognitive neuroscience of emotion"
that, a logical one, has produced especially great amount of understanding
how the brain works (or how even more complex it is) adding to the
understanding of the "central" element, the one between overt behaviors.
On another hand, the recent advances in neuroimaging, an important
augmentation of a "pure" cognitive neuroscience, produced what I personally
see as a rare occasion when true translational and integrative research has
become actually possible. How else, just to give a good example, Williams et
al would come up with such a neat research on subliminal processing? Or how
would it possible to expect the outcomes of, say, Chris Frith's research on
delusion (passivity phenomena) without the cognitive neuroscience paradigms
and methods and experimental design? I am just at loss when reading your
confirmation that, indeed, you see no value in cognitive neuroscience,
although I agree that a non-discriminate use of the "null hypothesis" and
statistics in general is a problem. But aren't the peer-reviewed publication
process is there to watch any trespassing of the methodological principles?
What I can see is the fact that we are actually very close to integrating
the old and the new schools as some now obscure notions, of a reflex, as in
Pavlov, for instance, can be explained in great detail, mainly because of
the input from cognitive neuroscience. This is what I find a bit exciting
lately, in neuroscience. A bit neurvous, but I would add that I am very
happy that some recent research in cognitie neuroscience of emotion (what a
weird way to say things!) provide very neat evidence that the old guy Freud
was right.
May be my position would be more clear if I'd say that I'd rather see
convergence of paradigms into a lesser number of conceptualizations. I'd add
though that we must include if not re-imbrace classic behaviorism concepts.
If a very profoud clinical impact of cognitive behavioral therapy is not an
evidence it is happening then I am really missing here something, although,
in my view the CBT is re-packaging of behaviorism.
As to Russian behaviorism. You are right in one sense, but wrong in the
other. Pavlovian behaviorism was largely physiological science rather than
behavioral. The consequent to Stalin's death psychology development, the
Soviet psychology was a completely different pot of soup, some of which was
actually very good.
Cheers, KK
_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
