<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-2022-JP"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi All, Dear Dr. Bower,<br>
<br>
Ad astronomy: according to Kuhn (SSR ch.2) it had its 1st paradigmata
in prehistorical times.<br>
<br>
"As far as textbooks, specialized journals, learned societies,
etc, are concerned -- just because we officially have them, doesn't
mean that they are what they say they are -- or they do what Kuhn was
talking about"" How are the SFN or the Kandel&Schwarz book
(or one of the several modelling textbooks) different from what they
claim to be (a scientific society and a
science textbook)? IMO they are exactly the social glue
of a scientific field Kuhn is discussing.<br>
<br>
I agree that PSTHs are often not a good way to characterize a
measurement from brains, but that's not relevant for this question IMO.
The use
of
PSTHs is agreed upon by the community, like so many other things
(recording techniques, neuropharmaka, Hodgkin&Huxley eqns, staining
techniques, ect) are
widely agreed upon. This, by Kuhn's definition, makes neuroscience a
paradigmatic science, not if a science is quantitative
(vs. "story
telling") or physics-like.<br>
<br>
I wholeheartedly agree with you that steps towards more quantitative
appoaches in biology are desirable and needed, the only thing I wanted
to point
out in my initial comment was that "quantitative" is not what Kuhn's
use
of the
word "paradigmatic" refers to.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Klaus Stiefel<br>
<br>
<br>
Jim Bower wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:FB2FDD80-F980-49CB-9CE5-D2CEDD83F89D@uthscsa.edu"
type="cite">First, humans knew for at least several thousand years
before Newton the question: why or how do the planets wander (redundant
in fact) and they also knew what data to collect (their position in the
night sky). By the time of Newton, many astronomers also used
telescopes. What they lacked was a formal agreed upon structural
foundation (Newtonian mechanics), around which the field could be
organized, and through which it could pose explicitly formulated
questions. Indeed, the software projects you mention are a step in
that direction (GENESIS was intended explicitly to be so). But only a
small step.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With respect to measurements -- I have already pointed out that
the standard form in which experimentalists report their results (PST
Histograms) are likely to be completely inappropriate for brains. <br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> As far as textbooks, specialized journals, learned societies,
etc, are concerned -- just because we officially have them, doesn't
mean that they are what they say they are -- or they do what Kuhn was
talking about. I have suggested previously, that these are more
modeled after physics - than appropriate for the study of the brain or
biology as a whole. I have already made the point that there is a
direct link between the development of the scientific journal and the
nature of explanation and communication in physics. in biology we are
still largely story tellers -- and have simply adapted the form of
scientific publication invented by Newton and his colleagues to our
story telling. Ironically enough, it was physics and not biology,
that has lead the way in the use of the Internet for publishing.
Further, the internet has allowed physicists to explore pre-review
publication of scientific papers. Why? Because along with the story
telling nature of biological publications comes the largely political
process of peer review - which in recent years has gotten way way out
of hand. I can not tell you how much heat we took in the early days of
the computational neuroscience meetings, when we actually were willing
to publish short papers that had not been thoroughly peer reviewed --
Why does a publication in biology require the approval of the dons?
but not in physics? Because we don't yet have quantitatively defined
paradigms, we have qualitatively (at best) supported opinions, whose
propagation (and protection) is dependent on 'who says so'. How else
is it possible for the cerebellum to remain a motor control device for
150 years?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With respect to unmeasurable theories - it seems to me that
string theory is doing pretty well -- why is that?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Finally, and sad to say, this list serve is made up of those
interested in the brain who are most likely to quantify their data and
theories -- one should not be deluded into thinking that "most
neuroscientists" get anywhere close. "Most neuroscientists" still
regard modeling as a largely empty exercise of little relevance to them
(at least judging by what they do and don't reference in their papers).
I am afraid to say it is sometimes hard for me to disagree with them.
The huge disconnect between experiment and modeling in neuroscience is
explicit testament to our lack of real paradigmatic structure -- I do
think that this is slowly changing, but tell me how many graduate
schools of neuroscience have a required course in theory and modeling
-- probably can count them on one hand. And how much modeling shows up
in our textbooks? </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This disconnect is another reason why I think realistic modeling
is a crucial technology for moving forward. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jim Bower<br>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Aug 29, 2008, at 8:35 AM, Klaus M. Stiefel wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi All, Dear Dr. Bower,</font><font
face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><br>
<br>
"<span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">incommensurate
ways of seeing the world and practicing science within it" is basically
what I meant by "basic explainanda". Modern neuroscience is practiced
so commensurate (= having a common measure) that most neuroscientists
buy their measuring equipment (amplifiers ect.) from the same handful
of international companies and use the same set of equations and
software (NEURON, GENESIS, XPP). Especially in paradigmatic sciences,
there will be a lack of (deemed unnecessary and solved) discussion.<br>
<br>
Kuhn argues (SSR, chapter 2) that a science, once it is paradigmatic,
has textbooks, specialized journals, and professional societies, like
biology and neuroscience have many. A healthy scientific disagreement
like the one in this discussion is not necessarily a sign of a
pre-paradigmatic science. It might lead the way to a paradigm change,
though.<br>
<br>
One of the few people who I believe are outside of the main paradigm of
neuroscience is Roger Penrose, and his ideas about quantum coherence in
neurons. He has (rightfully, I believe) few followers, and you won't
see any devices to measure the quantum effects he is talking about at
the vendors' booths at SFN.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Klaus Stiefel</span></span></font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:DDF5075A-2812-4ADE-A672-96F97E7D9E1D@uthscsa.edu" type="cite">
<div apple-content-edited="true"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;">
<div style="">
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Klaus Stiefel: pre-paradigmatic " What he meant by that is
a disagreement about the basic explainanda"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>No, Kuhn was focused on process to quote: "the early
developmental stages of most sciences (are) characterized by continual
competition between a number of distinct views of nature, each
partially derived from, and all roughly compatible with, the dictates
of scientific observation and method, (In pre-paradigmatic science)
what differentiates these various schools (is) not one or another
failure of method - they are all "scientific" - but what we shall come
to call their incommensurable ways of seeing the world and practicing
science within it" (pg 4 The Structure of Scientific Revolution.) If
this discussion over the last two months doesn't make it clear that, as
a field, we currently have "incommensurate ways of seeing the world and
practicing science within it" I don't know what does. Kuhn goes on to
say: "Men (sic) whose research is based on shared paradigms are
committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice."
Again, this discussion makes it pretty clear to me that we have not
yet reached that point. In fact, (and I would say reflecting this
fact) the kind of discussion we have been having here seldom ever
happens as we are content (and being pre-paradigmatic can get away
with) agreeing to not discuss what we don't agree on, another
characteristic of pre-paradigmatic science -- and the reason I don't
mind starting these discussions.</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><span
class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;"><br>
<br>
</span></span> </div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Comp-neuro mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Comp-neuro@neuroinf.org">Comp-neuro@neuroinf.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.neuroinf.org/mailman/listinfo/comp-neuro">http://www.neuroinf.org/mailman/listinfo/comp-neuro</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>