The inferential path between the fMRI instrument and anything meaningful is extraordinarily long, complex, and tenuous. Just at the front end it involves several stages of statistically torturing the distorted and noisy data to get some stable signal out of it.
-
-
Related thread I’m pulling at is that not all domains will even admit a strong paradigm understanding. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily dubious. They’re just low paradigm. Fundamentally nebulous rather than just at a nebulous stage on the way to a more rigorous stage.
-
Right. One can do good work in a field in which nebulosity is inevitable and no hard-edged ontology is possible. Again in fact that’s what I most enjoy.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Something I’m still not getting here... what role do you see radiologists playing here?
-
That may be the wrong term. What do you call the technical doctors who read the actual fMRI imagery? Radiologists do x-rays, so I assume fMRIs is also them or there’s a separate breed. Or do neurologists and psychologists etc directly read the images without intermediaries?
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.