I must confess that reading this was quite disheartening. With all due respect to Mark, after reviewing it, I am left with the impression that our understanding is now merely a matter of chance, and that revising our methods does not seem to be accompanied by an equivalent level of clarity.
My first thought, someone messed up the Cuda update.
BCIsh
Marr discourse among neuroscientists is like people who quote Adam smith but have read *at most* one chapter of wealth of nations.
The shame is that neither option describes the majority of the actual work people do, which is usually filling in details, refining measurements, etc. So we end up with a framing that makes it harder to distinguish signal from noise
I am old so I can say this: innovation in neuroscience research can be accelerated if we did not waste so much resources repeating what we already know from NHP and rat research in Cre mouse lines
I’m very skeptical of most arguments in this article. For example, most neuro-ecological/ethological arguments are super vague at the moment and as they more concrete I suspect they will prove equally hard for linking hypotheses or wind up being fairly close to what has always been done.
