> and I said “but single-cell recording is pretty well played out, right?” and she said “yeah, but at least it actually works.” So she kept doing it, and fMRI turned out to be mostly a great way to fake yourself out, as she predicted. It is NUCLEAR and EXPENSIVE, though…
-
Show this thread
-
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
The 2014 dead-salmon paper was a major wakeup call for “fMRI mostly isn’t a thing,” rather like the 2010 Bem ESP paper:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/479081792192802817 …
David Chapman added,
6 replies 5 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
The point is not that it was wrong to pursue candidate-gene or fMRI work. There were valid reasons for excitement amid uncertainty in both cases (although also good a priori reasons to think neither could work, which turned out to be correct).
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
This is what we need most I think! More scientists pursuing lines of inquiry that probably won’t work. So long as they MIGHT work, and haven’t been reasonably thoroughly shown to fail. “We KNOW this doesn’t work, but I can get funding for it”: time to reevaluate your career.
1 reply 8 retweets 35 likesShow this thread -
(If I sound ranty about this, it’s because I left my scientific career after concluding that my very-well-funded field was a dead end.)
1 reply 0 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Shortly before she died, my sister said that as a graduate student, she expected that neuroscience would actually figure out how brains work over the course of her career. In fact, it’s made almost no progress in decades. Tons of detailed factoids but no new broad understanding.
3 replies 3 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
My sister said that over her career, the number of funded neuroscientists and papers published increased ten-fold, but the number of reliable papers published was constant. She would never say this, but think she believed >>90% of scientists should not be doing science.
1 reply 4 retweets 44 likesShow this thread -
It’s hard (and probably pointless) to divvy up blame between individual scientists and the perverse institutional incentives. In the
@BrentWRoberts@fourbeerspod episode, there’s plenty of interesting examples of both.1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Common bad preferences of science funders, who usually lack vision and understanding, include: - Superficially looks more like physics than other approaches in the field - Requires large, expensive new equipment - Has “momentum” (created by their own funding)
2 replies 3 retweets 42 likesShow this thread -
I worked briefly at Thinking Machines, which built the Connection Machine, which was by far the largest, most expensive supercomputer of the late 80s. Nearly all were sold on the basis of “it’s a very large, very sleek black box that costs a gigantic amount of money.”
4 replies 4 retweets 27 likesShow this thread
Huh! I worked at OpenMarket, which moved into the space in the Carter Ink building at 245 First Street that you guys were vacating as you scaled down. I had some abandoned Thinking Machine trade show posters in my cube for a while.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.