I feel like it's one of those fields where people get utter bollocks through peer review more than most. See also: pedagogy.
-
-
Replying to @pennyb
Perhaps. There's a lot of charlatans that claim neurobollocks where there is none. Just as pernicious if not more.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I think we know next to fuck all about brains and should admit it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @pennyb
Wait what. So that's not true. There's tons we know. I guess it depends who "we" is? I'm confused? Like do you include me, my lab, my field?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
Not you! The general population knows more myth than truth and more nothing than anything. But think they know.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @o_guest
Aw no! Some fields attract bad popsci books and that way lies...this.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @pennyb
Exactly. Bad both ways. Like bad pro and bad con. Some excellent good neuro popsci is Cordelia Fine http://www.cordeliafine.com
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Some terrible stuff is this https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Mind-Not-Computer-Neuromythology/dp/0907845940 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Both those books "debunk" or just disagree with basic stuff in neuroscience. One is bad to wrong the other is perfecto. 
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.

