LTT: L. Elber

Title:  Are the problems of neuroscience just like everyone else’s? And what should philosophers do about them?

Abstract:  Lately, there have been many papers criticizing various methods in neuroscience as failing to yield results that can support the desired conclusions. Specifically, while neuroscientific results identify correlations and causal relations, scientists often aim to draw conclusions about neuronal representation, computation, or function. There are both neuroscientists and philosophers who are critical of this move. On the other hand, many neuroscientists are unbothered by those criticisms, and take the described challenges as an expected part of doing science. In my talk, I will argue that neuroscience faces some unique difficulties in the way results should be interpreted, which cannot be resolved by aggregating more empirical data. Therefore, these challenges are unlikely to be overcome when they are ignored. Instead, what is required is explicit discussion of the assumptions this field should make.

This talk will also be available live streamed on You Tube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCrRp47ZMXD7NXO3a9Gyh2sg.