A question for neuroscientists: Are psychologists claiming expertise in neuroscience actually have THAT? Or, are they pretending for ascribed status?
Or grasping for justification of their views or "findings" (just to find superficial and crude patterns of activity in the brain SEEMINGLY related to their "findings")? Or, are they just trying to "milk" their imaginations? I clearly see "yes" as the answer to each of the questions. But I am open to persuasive correction.
Can one even believe the "understanding" from brain activity? -- that now seems to be an "understanding" MOST psychologists seem to have ?? It's not empirical, really, it's desperation; and it's not even a good analogy or metaphor.
Psychologists specialise in neuropsychology or in one other field after they have their basic graduation in psychology. To take a Ph.D in psychology is 12 years.
Dear António José Rodrigues Rebelo
I agree, in at least some notable way(s), with your view on psychology and neuroscience : much like you, I do not see any reasonable clear-enough links between brain activity and psychology for it to be claimed by psychologists as very useful . YET, actually mere beliefs OF psychologists about brain activity and behavior [(
This is a fascinating question that would please RM Rilke as its value as an open question should never be underestimated and might orient scientific research and book writing as well.
Or it is a way to quantify any CV as relevant or not...
Efforcez-vous d’aimer vos questions elles-mêmes, chacune comme une pièce qui vous serait fermée, comme un livre écrit dans une langue étrangère. Ne cherchez pas pour le moment des réponses qui ne peuvent vous être apportées, parce que vous ne sauriez les mettre en pratique, les vivre. Et il s’agit pour l’instant de tout vivre. Ne vivez pour l’instant que vos questions. Peut-être simplement en les vivant, finirez-vous par entrer, insensiblement, un jour, dans les réponses.
Rainer Maria Rilke
Lettres à un jeune poète
Françoise Schenk :
Thanks much for responding. Try mynichecomp.com/key_content
Dear António José Rodrigues Rebelo
Based on what you say, then why do most psychologists nowadays use neuroscience as EVIDENCE (fraudulently) ? This has got to be stopped. It is like astrology (myth -based and "mere beliefs", in the worst sense).
because neuroscience adds a touch of real science, even I do not know what really is scientific.
I think it depends on the individual State requirements. In PA there is no formal requirement to identify as Neuropsychologist. I'm not sure about other states.
Dear Kathy Burson
My concern was, not as you speak to the issue, but whether the psychology people know enough about brain activity to even have a faint (yet somehow an on-the-real-point reliable "thing" AND seemingly valid) interpretation; my guess is : NO. Even those biology physiologists, neuroscientists do not seem to be able to make much of brain activity.
( Licensing has never been a concern of mine. )
Psychologists who study neuropsychology have a knowledge of how the brain works and behaves when certain functions are destroyed or interrupted. A significant amount of research has been done to develop instruments that are sensitive to the areas that are likely damaged. Understanding brain functions is a very complex endeavor, but through continued study, the field has made tremendous strides in achieving progress in this area.
As a neurophysiologist since my PhD, I studied behaviour to understand why, how and where an individual (rodent or human) pursued its activity. I was struck by hippocampal spatial units and showed how to analyze spatial cognition, BUT I never chose to consider that the brain alone was THE ghost in the machine... when the machine was part of the ghost.
Sorry to look so old fashioned, but I always refused mechanistic short cuts and preferred the idea of a body in the mind to avoid considering the brain as the unique author of behaviour and thinking.
The Psychologist can not directly claimed for neuoscientist but the neurobehavioural studies are related to working brain and their functions.
This is also part of neurobehavioural studies as similar to neuroscience.
perhaps, one should reduce the emphasis that has empowered the category of neuroscience as if it were THE science approaching what are human beings as compared to animals...
Under this focus, the psychologist will merely be the scientist aiming at understanding humans through knowledge of brain activity. Obviouslyit is merely a part of the question... unable to define any representant of psychological science.
A question of specific definition, once again...
All discussions reflecting that neuroscience is science whereas as psychology as a subjective thoughts. My finelly coment is that can classified between brain and mind, is brain depends on mind or mind depends on brain??
- Badges
- Science method