tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post4561368309804476098..comments2024-02-29T03:57:00.088-05:00Comments on The Mermaid's Tale: Cute, cuddly....and off the markAnne Buchananhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-8377345210730998812013-09-19T18:55:56.121-04:002013-09-19T18:55:56.121-04:00I'm sorry if you felt we were ourselves off th...I'm sorry if you felt we were ourselves off the mark in the way we treated the paper. I could offer various views on that, but we used it as a foil for making the point about the uncritical acceptance of pendulum like findings splashed on the cover of major journals...and I don't think backing off of that point is called for.<br /><br />In the extreme, a relatively simple sociality mechanism would be quickly interpreted in competitive terms by the likes of Dawkins, Dennett (and the younger EO Wilson). And Nature chose this as the cover paper, and chose to present it as we described, I think.<br /><br />Anyway, we didn't mean to suggest, and don't think we did suggest, that there was anything wrong with the paper, and regret it if we did.<br /><br />Attention should be focused (agreeing or not) with our intended broader point about how science is working these days.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-83837429750343093742013-09-19T17:10:32.624-04:002013-09-19T17:10:32.624-04:00It’s fair enough to want to criticize hype, glib o...It’s fair enough to want to criticize hype, glib or misleading headlines, and uninformative illustrations, but in this case you do so at the expense of a very interesting and important piece of science.<br /><br />To begin with, the paper from the Malenka lab is not really about ‘cooperation vs. competition’. It’s about the identification of a neural circuit that contributes to the ‘reward’ associated with social attachment or bonding, a phenomenon that has extensive roots in the scientific literature quite independent of any of the controversies surrounding the arguments of Richard Dawkins. It also has nothing to do with ‘single gene evolution’—the paper in fact outlines the interactive effect of oxytocin and serotonin in different regions of the mouse brain as a linchpin of the neural circuitry underlying social reward. And in any case the paper does not claim that this interaction provides a complete explanation. It does, however, mark an important advance in our understanding of the brain circuits that underlie social interactions.<br /><br />Your piece criticizes the attention paid to “ephemeral findings” that are “incremental” and provide “superficial answers”. More power to you. But the paper by Dolen et al. isn’t any of those things, furry little mice notwithstanding, and I hope your readers who are interested in cutting edge neuroscience will give it a careful read. [full disclosure: I work at the foundation that supported some of the work in this paper]<br />Alan Packernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-32276868215426752372013-09-19T09:20:54.293-04:002013-09-19T09:20:54.293-04:00Just a note that Jim has expounded at length here ...Just a note that Jim has <a href="http://ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2013/05/lets-abandon-significance-tests.html" rel="nofollow">expounded at length </a>here on MT on the significance test issue. Well worth reading. Anne Buchananhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09212151396672651221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-79493386769730020412013-09-19T09:16:41.185-04:002013-09-19T09:16:41.185-04:00I would add this sort of after-thought. Kuhn was ...I would add this sort of after-thought. Kuhn was pointing out aspects of the sociology of science, as a corrective to the prior view that science was all an objective march to truth. Kuhn's points had been made (and Kuhn knew about it but didn't give credit) by Ludwik Fleck in the 1930's in relation to the understanding of syphillis and of human anatomy.<br /><br />I haven't looked at his book recently, but I don't recall his delving much into the epistemology by which the currently operative paradigm is investigated. That would get into issues of now 'normal' science was being done, and I think would involve another layer of 'paradigm' (e.g., sampling and statistical analysis and assumptions), but also might help explain why a paradigm can hold on tightly--if the methods that are part of operating practices aren't powerful or definitive enough, or if the methods themselves aren't being challenged enough.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-29494086905978327712013-09-19T09:05:15.307-04:002013-09-19T09:05:15.307-04:00The issue related to your first point is that the ...The issue related to your first point is that the issue is not a secret, yet people absolutely refuse to pay any attention to it. Among other things, scientists and their media parasites thrive on claiming definitiveness for their current results (but, admitting they aren't perfect, demand 'further research needs to be done' to refine the finding.<br /><br />Second, I couldn't agree more about the damage that Kuhn has done with his phrase 'paradigm shift', so uncritically accepted so widely because it allows everyone to fancy that s/he is involved in creating one.<br /><br />But I'm not sure I agree with your statement about it's implication. At least, I think what has happened overall has largely done the opposite, by leading to endless replication and repetition because it's easy to argue that one needs to improve the existing findings with yet another study. This leads to the massive uncritical, ultra-safe, long-term, replication studies that eat up so much research funding.<br /><br />Going along with that, any study that is not a replication attempt, that is, is 'innovative' in that sense, has scant chance of receiving research funding. It's too risky and those doing conventional (replication type) studies guard the funds tightly.<br /><br />There are other issues about what 'replication' is possible in areas like genetics, so you may be thinking of other areas where different sorts of replication serve just as you say.<br /><br />I do, however, agree that there is at the same time a kind of denigration of 'normal science', but Kuhn actually stressed its vital importance because normal science--clinging to current accepted views and practice--is what gradually forces the innovative rethinking, because normal science can't go beyond the paradigm.<br /><br />In statistical areas that you and we usually deal in, appropriate kinds of replication and sampling and statistical analysis are fundamental. I assume that's basically what your last sentence was saying.Ken Weisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02049713123559138421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1812431336777691886.post-86059880481780048222013-09-19T08:47:05.474-04:002013-09-19T08:47:05.474-04:00Ken, this post raises a number of important issues...Ken, this post raises a number of important issues, but right now I'll just comment on two of them. First, given the almost complete reliance of biomedical research on a faulty NHST framework, an inconsistent, ever-oscillating Truth-o-Meter is exactly what you'd expect. Second, one of the most damaging influences of Thomas Kuhn has been the widespread belief that the only science worth doing, career-wise, is "paradigm-shifting" science(Gawd, I loath that term!). Everything else is (sniff) "normal" science and worthy only of drones. That belief has largely killed replication, which is the capstone of sound scientific inference...in my humble opinion.Jim Woodnoreply@blogger.com