What I really find difficult about the causality debate in neuroscience is that when I say "your method does not establish causality but your field claims causality" I near universally hear "but other fields do the same". #NotAnArgument #CausalTruthExists
-
-
Replying to @KordingLab
It seems to be a near universal problem since the end of scientific modernism in the 1970ies. Science does no longer define itself by questions, but by the application of methods. I sometimes wonder whether academia can recover from it or if it needs a reboot.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @KordingLab
What makes science science _is_ the method (the scientific method). Where's the problem?
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @fHachenberg @KordingLab
There is no single accepted scientific method, in the same way as there is no single immutable universally accepted natural language. Science is the systematic, criticizable pursuit of truth (or knowledge, or the arts, depending on your school). Don't fix language before meaning.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz @fHachenberg
yes. In science there are correct arguments and incorrect arguments. And a thinking human being can distinguish the two. A method is like a human, without the thinking ;). For example, approaches that are correct for physics may fail for biology.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, in the absence of meta models, the researcher embodies a model of its methodology that turns him into an operator on a shared body of ideas. It is terrifying that the researcher will have to be sacrificed if the architecture of the body is malformed.
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.