(no subject)

Apr 26, 2008 03:32

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080423121427.htm

"By blocking certain mechanisms that control the way that nerve cells in the brain communicate, scientists from the University of Bristol have been able to prevent visual recognition memory in rats. This demonstrates they have identified cellular and molecular mechanisms in the brain that may provide a key to understanding processes of recognition memory."

A pet peeve:While these researchers may have identified a mechanistic process underlying memory, there is no reason to think that they have reduced memory to a mechanistic process.

Consider an analogy: What if  I claimed that I understand the mechanism by which my computer  produces video images, because I could prevent it from doing so by knocking out the video card?  "Look, if I knock out this one part it stops working. Therefore this part produces video. Now, we understand it." We would hardly have explained how it works.

This kind of muddled talk pervades the popular literature around science. Things are said to be "explained" when only the barest description has been achieved. Thus, the illusion that science has demystified the world persists.
Previous post Next post
Up
[]