I'm trying to get my head around what is meant by an 'antireductionist' or 'top-down' research approach to the study of neuroscience (specifically the study of learning and memory).
It is my understanding the the antireductionist/top-down approach involves observing behaviour in intact animals before looking at the underlying molecular mechanisms.
I wonder if brain lesioning studies are considered antireductionist/top-down approaches? Also, does the study of systems neuroscience (i.e. the study of neural circuits) also qualify?
I am not surprised you can't get your head around antireductionist research, since this is mainly a cognitive-heavy philosophical position for those who cannot bring themselves to accept that we are animals, that the brain generates behaviour, albeit not deterministically. I think the work of Alexander Luria is still relevant, wherein he integrates a systems and holistic approach to psychological processes, whilst at the same time giving precise lesional correlates.
Thank you for your answer. Yes, I'm struggling to get to grips with the antireductionist approach as it, from my understanding, seems to offer little real insight into brain processes.
Do you think lesioning studies or the the study of whole neural circuits qualify as top-down research approaches (in that we are not looking at individual cells and molecules)? I am particularly unsure when it comes to lesioning studies as we are still primarily observing behaviour, albeit following some form of manipulation.
I don't think I can add anything more, other than to recommend Luria's work on the functional systems in the brain. The antireductionist literature is like wading through mud, and is largely wishful thinking.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction