[L3] - Neuroscience Turn Flashcards
Who coined the term bullshitters?
Frankfurt (1986)
People who are not necessarily liars - but do not care about established rules for fact-finding (simply do not care about truth).
What are the three most important classical positions when it comes to the Theory of Science?
- Positivism
- Falsificationism
- Paradigms
Positivism {The Vienna Circle}: If theories are formulated correctly - in such a way that they CAN BE VERIFIED by empirical research – and if they are then verified, then we will know these theories to be true [Demarcation Criterion = Verification] – The more scientific research we do, the closer we get to truth (fond of inductive reasoning).
Falsificationism {Popper}: Knowing theories to be true is impossible. We can only FALSIFY theories (i.e., know with certainty that they are wrong). However, we can improve theories such that they can explain more phenomena and allow more predictions - and can hence be more easily falsified (even if they have withstood the test of falsification thus far) [Demarcation Criterion = Falsification] - The more scientific research we do, the more we minimize error.
Paradigms {Kuhn}: Paradigms are shaped by scientific communities and their needs; they do not develop linearly but in a circular fashion characterized by revolutions. Due to a LACK OF AN INDEPENDENT STANDARD, paradigms can be distinguished as different from other paradigms but NOT BETTER than other paradigms (i.e., they are INCOMMESURABLE) – [Demarcation Criterion = Kuhn did not try to answer the demarcation problem question, but tried to explain how scientific progress/evolution occurs - Puzzle-Solving?] - The more scientific research we do, the more the cycle of scientific revolutions continues, making way for change and productive research.
Why do Positivist dislike the Metaphysical view? (e.g., Freud, Jung and will/the unconscious)
Because positivists want claims with conditions under which they can be proven true {the reductionist view}
Schlick and Carnap (and later behaviorists Pavlov and Skinner) claimed that things we cannot test are nonsense.
The Reductionist/Mechanistic view on what it means to be human
In the face of the Mind-Body-Trilemma, the reductionist/mechanistic view of people aims to show that the mind is nothing but body (its just the brain).
Thomas Szasz (anti-psychiatry/critical psychiatrist who argued in favour of psychiatry without coercion and in favour of creating a contract between therapist and client) - reflected on what science matches our understanding of human nature and what implication would such a perspective have?
The continuum of perspectives on what it means to be human
PP - B - CP - HP - P
Psychiatry Psychopharmacology – Behaviorism – Cognitive Psychology – Humanistic Psychology – Psychoanalysis [the more holistic side of things – human beings as more than just their neural activity]
One’s view impacts one’s perception of symptoms (i.e., holistic view might make someone seek the deeper meaning behind their emotions/symptoms)
The Historical Timeline of the Neuroscience Turn
1990’s:
* Declared by Bush as the decade of the brain.
* Understanding of the brain increased dramatically - with the U.S.A seeking to use these insights to aid in their war on drugs.
* Crick in 1994 articulated his consciousness perspective with the Astonishing Hypothesis (neurobiologist responsible for the double helix DNA - with Watson and Franklin) - “You, your joys and your sorrows … are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” - Psychiatry Psychopharmacology perspective on humanity
* Lamme – argued that we should get rid of psychology (because we have no free will). Dick Swaab also agreed with Crick in his book ‘we are our our brain’
2000s:
* Wegner (2002) - conscious will is an illusion
* Gazzaniga (2011) - human decisions to act are made before the individual is consciously aware of them.
* Singer (2004) - Circuits determine us. We should stop talking about freedom.
* Verbeke (sales/account management) (2009) - “Decisions are made unconsciously. … fMRI is a scan with which we can see what people really think and do, not what they themselves say, but what they really do.” - argued that companies would choose employees based on brain scans.
* Powerful statements by neuroscientists to the public were often quite influential.
* Dumit (2004) tested whether you can actually see whether you can actually determine whether someone is depressed, a doctor, a scientist etc., from just their brain scans (you can’t)
* Johnson (2008) analyzed the work of doctors who formulated people’s psychological problems in terms of brain problems (e.g. dysfunction in prefrontal cortex or anterior cingulate gyrus) - who would then tell people to change their brain to solve their psychological problems. The scientific validity of such claims were deemed highly questionable!
What does Foucault’s Biopower refer to?
It refers to the dominant societal role played by the practice of telling people that their problems have a biological root, and that they have to fix their body to fix their problems!
The idea that mental problems are medical problems sometimes has a greater influence - and it still happens today.
A Modern Example of Neuro-Realism
“Brain activation between healthy people and people with burn-out differs. That is what researchers at the Radboud University found out. For the first time it has thus been shown that burn-out really exists.”
This claim suggests a verification that burn-out exists (can we actually say that/can we actually explain the differences observed? - its an inference to the best explanation really: the interpretation of neural imaging data is perhaps more subjective than some people would like to admit)
Such a claim might also suggest that things that cannot be shown on neural scans are not “true”.
Kuhn and Whig History
In Kuhn’s examination of documented historical scientific progress what he found to be particularly salient was that the history of science was told in a way that made the present paradigm look like the logical conclusion of the past {Whig History} – which was inconsistent with the perspective he later created (cyclical, revolutions).
In other words, people were reinterpreting history to support their own perspective/stabilize a certain paradigm.
The misunderstanding of Phineas Gage
The Common Account:
* Before: “a reliable, well-liked, respected, and organized individual”
* After: “sexually promsicuous, reckless, unreliable, and irresponsible– essentially a pseudo-psychopathic individual”
* This reported onset of a ‘psychopathic-like behavior’ after frontal lobe injury, led to the introduction of the concept of ‘acquired sociopathy’
Damasio’s - key player in the Neuroscience Turn - (1994) Perspective on Gage:
* Before: A sense of personal and social responsibility, reflected in the way he advanced in his job, cared for the quality of his work, and attracted admiration. He was well adapted in terms of social convention and appears to have been ethical.
* After: No longer showed respect for social convention; ethics were violated; the decisions he made did not take into account his best interest, and he was given to invent stories ‘without any foundation except in his fancy,’. There was no evidence of concern about his future - There is NO QUESTION that Gage’s personality change was caused by a circumscribed brain lesion in a specific site.
Clarifying Damasio’s Sources:
* The source on Gage inventing stories came from an account in which he would entertain his nieces/nephews with fabulous recitals of wonderful imagined feats - he was very fond of pets and souvenirs, especially children, horses and dogs – only exceeded by his attachment for his tamping iron.
* This doesn’t seem dangerous or pseudo-psychopathic as depicted by Damasio, and also he sounds social with children and animals; and he did work after the injury.
* Damasio is reducing everything to the brain, when Gage’s experience could be explained by infection/inflammation, brain damage from surgery, degenerative epileptic fits, shock/trauma, stigmatization etc.
* 92% of journals described personality changes - even though the evidence for this is minimal - only 4% considered alternative explanations, 16% recovery, and 52% psychopathy-like behavior.
Harlow vs. Bigelow’s Perspectives on Gage
- Dr. John Harlow (Gage’s physician) was inclined to phrenology and described Gage’s personality as permanently changed (1848) …
- Dr. Henry J. Bigelow (Harvard University) was an anti-localizationist and described Gage as psychologically and physically totally recovered [except for his eyes] (1850)
- Did both doctors see what they believed? Is Bigelow’s conclusion more reliably related to the other evidence? - Important to seek out original sources.
- What might it mean for patients today if they learn that their brain damage might turn them irrevocably into psychopaths? (vs. a perspective of brain plasticity; neurorehabilitation)
A modern wrap-up on Gage
- Evidence of Gage’s personality changes after the accident is scarce, ambiguous and particularly does not refer to aggressive or criminal behavior.
- Gage’s (putative) personality changes are frequently attributed to the direct brain damage to the vMPFC.
- Alternative explanations referring to long-term neuropathological processes and psychological shock or trauma are neglected.
- Damasio uses examples like that of Phineas Gage in prominent places to show how observations of the past lead to his present theory.
- A historical analysis shows, though, that he misrepresents such examples to support his theory. This was described as “whig history” by Kuhn. (reinterpreting history to support one’s own perspective/stabilize a certain paradigm)
An Example of the potential Social Implications of the Neuroscience Turn [Raine]
Adrian Raine and the biological roots of crime/aggression in the brain - he advocated for mandatory brain scans and imprisonment as a result.
Without free or conscious will, we cannot responsible for our actions - Without responsibility we cannot be guilty - Without guilt, punishment would be unjust - Without punishment, our penal law system must be overthrown.
The Historical Roots of the Free Will Debate
- 19th century physiology = new materialism, 1930s physics = determinism and causation; causation and free will debates, 1960s neurobiology = determinism – similar arguments across time.
- Debunking the Benjamin Libet Experiment: (pioneering investigator of consciousness, because of the dominant of the external/behaviourist view of the time)
- Libet experiment: How EEG brain activity relates to consciousness of the decision and the action. [readiness potential -> consciousness -> action]
- Libet himself did not question the existence on the basis of his results; but the media far preferred an account that did.
- Libet found that the readiness potential can be measured WITH AND WITHOUT the action occurring. This has been replicated.
- So, the readiness potential precedes BOTH action and inaction.
- Libet himself proposed a cognitive model where the RP prepares a volitional action, without fully DETERMINING it.
- He hypothesized that some additional process must “push” the RP above a threshold for the action to occur – a process that may be conscious or may not.
- He criticized colleagues who denied the possibility of free will, and completely neglected findings on the “veto” (e.g. Wegner’s “Illusion of Conscious Will”, 2002).
Wrapping up on the Neuroscience Turn
- The neurosciences receive a huge amount of academic and public attention (and funds).
- In many cases, findings are promised to have a huge social impact (dangerous brains, mental health, free will).
- A closer analysis of the knowledge making process shows that many of these explanations are psychologically implausible (Gage, dangerous brains, free will).
- Instead of replacing psychology, psychological knowledge should really be (and often is) a precondition and test of neuroscience research.
