Mike, On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 3:35 PM, tintner michael <[email protected]>wrote:
> Well I hadn't heard that the great *majority* of research is considered > untrustworthy - and I don't recall our discussions here pointing that up. > Some yes, the majority no. > Opinions as to where the "line" should be vary all over the map. My own personal view is that pretty much everything should be published, at least until we know a little more for sure. Like most "sciences" there has evolved a group-think that isn't particularly logical. At minimum we should have SOME model of SOME part of our brains that SOMEWHAT matches observations. Right now, we aren't anywhere close to this. When this comes to pass, let's discuss standards. Now, every observation and theory can only help. > > And that's clearly why the N Scientist is making this its lead article > today > They must be running short of material. Steve ================= > On 19 October 2013 22:57, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Mike, >> >> On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 2:44 PM, tintner michael < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Worth reading lead article this week's New Scientist -claims that the >>> great majority of neuroscientific research is untrustworthy - while hoping >>> that this may lead to a new more solid stage of research. >>> >> >> This is the oldest of news - more than half a century. One side want >> solid reproducible results, the other side says that this isn't possible, >> so let's publish SOMETHING. >> >> There is a LOT that is below the threshold of publication, that you can >> learn by working with others in a wet lab. I did this, and heard things ~40 >> years ago that are must now being "discovered", along with much more that >> has yet to be "discovered". >> >> This can ONLY happen with MUCH better equipment. My microscope proposal >> is clearly supportive of this goal. Until then, we seem to be stuck with >> the status quo. >> >> BTW, SOMEONE should publish a book of neuroscientific suspicions. It >> would be hard to find a researcher who couldn't add something to such a >> book. THIS could guide machine learning MUCH better than current published >> neuroscientific research. >> >> Steve >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/6952829-59a2eca5> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
