Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 1

Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system. There are many important clinical applications of neuroscience in Psychiatry, Neurology, Neurosurgery and Clinical Psychology. Depending on the criterion used for defining neuroscience we can say that neuroscience has developed over a period of several thousand years. We can say this because developing knowledge of the nervous system has emerged from numerous lines of enquiry ranging from philosophical investigation to the use of applied physics. The division of Mind and Brain characterised by the work of Rene Descartes had practical implications both for scientific investigation of nervous system phenomenon and also for the applications of Neuroscience although it is only in recent times that Neuroscience has become established and developed a strong identity. Indeed Neuroscience has arisen because of one simple assumption – in the study of the nervous system the arbitrary division into mind and brain is irrelevant – all lines of enquiry are valid. The compartmentalisation characteristic of different periods not only in the Twentieth Century but throughout the preceding centuries has been removed.

This approach to the study of the nervous system brings a set of unique problems faced by those that initially established the compartmentalisations. There is a very significant difference in the way in which Mind and Brain matters are dealt with theoretically. In the parlance of philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn significant changes occur within scientific communities when one paradigm is replaced by another. However if we move to a more fundamental level of analysis by removing the a priori assumption that Mind and Brain must be investigated separately how much more of a shift does the community face? The Neuroscience community therefore is not restricted by the dialogues within the paradigm of a single community. Instead the community has the freedom to move between paradigms, to move outside of paradigms and to develop new paradigms.

However such freedom brings significant risks. The paradigm anchors the community and ensures that there is a strategic direction within the work of that community. Working outside of such paradigms perhaps facilitates a more innovative work which relies on the communities of the related paradigms to take forward this work. Does the Neuroscientist explore the nervous system by means of various techniques before finally becoming a cellular biologist or Neuroanatomist or Neurophysiologist? By remaining a Neuroscientist, he or she faces a fundamental problem – the division of Mind and Brain is not just arbitrary but reflects a very real and perhaps irreconcilable difference in the approach needed to understand these phenomenon. In this sense, the challenges of Neuroscience are fundamentally philosophical. One man who has written about this is the Australian Psychiatrist Dr Niall McLaren (see review here). McLaren’s central argument is that there is no core BioPsychoSocial Model (originally proposed by Engel) and he instead proposes one approach to this.

I propose that a fundamental problem in the approach to Neuroscience and the Mind/Brain division is the use of language. Language is the ‘language of the Mind’ and the product of the Brain. Language is the key to the human understanding of the Mind and Brain. Individual words are building blocks of a language. Neuroscience incorporates the work of many different communities with specialised languages. This presents a significant challenge since it is not practical for the members of the Neuroscience community to be readily familiar with the language of many scientific communities. At one level a simple approach is to generate a language for use within the Neuroscience community. The artificial generation of such a language however is unlikely to succeed as languages develop organically and to some degree evolve as a result of the generation of practical solutions to shared problems. The Neuroscientist must to some degree speak the language of the related communities but to what degree is another matter. Perhaps a study investigating the language use of Neuroscientists and members of other communities would shed light on this matter although for maximal benefit this would need a strategic direction.

Related Resources on the TAWOP Site

In Support of Method

A Review of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions

An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 1

An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 2

An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 3

An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 4

An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 5

An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 6

An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 7 – A Discussion of the Anomaly and Beyond

Do We Need A Crisis in Science For A Revolution to Occur? – An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 8

What is the Effect of a Scientific Crisis in Neuroscience? An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 9

Has Neuroscience Been Undergoing a Limited Political Revolution Rather Than A Scientific Revolution? An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 10

Is Neuroscience a Collection of Neuroscience Memes?: An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 11

What Would An Accurate Historical Narrative of Neuroscience Look Like? An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 12

Is Criticism Within Neuroscience Sufficient for a Revolution? An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 13

Is A Historical Narrative Central to the Development of Neuroscience? An Interpretation of Scientific Revolutions – Part 14

Index: There are indices for the TAWOP site here and here Twitter: You can follow ‘The Amazing World of Psychiatry’ Twitter by clicking on this link. Podcast: You can listen to this post on Odiogo by clicking on this link (there may be a small delay between publishing of the blog article and the availability of the podcast). It is available for a limited period. TAWOP Channel: You can follow the TAWOP Channel on YouTube by clicking on this link. Responses: If you have any comments, you can leave them below or alternatively e-mail justinmarley17@yahoo.co.uk. Disclaimer: The comments made here represent the opinions of the author and do not represent the profession or any body/organisation. The comments made here are not meant as a source of medical advice and those seeking medical advice are advised to consult with their own doctor. The author is not responsible for the contents of any external sites that are linked to in this blog.

14 thoughts on “Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 1

  1. Pingback: Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 2 « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  2. Pingback: Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 5: A Three Structure Model « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  3. Pingback: Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 6: Reflection on the Three Structure Model « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  4. Pingback: Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 7: Three Structure Model « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  5. Pingback: Revising the Three Structure Model: Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 8 « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  6. Pingback: Revising the Three Structure Model: Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 9 | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  7. Pingback: A Look at Language and Speech in the Three Structure Model. Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 10 | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  8. Pingback: Revising the Description of Speech with the Three Structure Model. Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 11 | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  9. Pingback: Rerevising the Description of Speech within the Three Structure Model. Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 12 | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  10. Pingback: Automatic Speech in the Three Structure Model – Part 1. Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 13 | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  11. Pingback: Automatic Speech in the Three Structure Model – Part 2. Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 13 | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  12. Pingback: Automatic Speech in the Three Structure Model – Part 3. Integration in Neuroscience: A Core Problem – Part 15 | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  13. Pingback: An Overview of the Three Structure Model (Part 17) | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

  14. Pingback: Exploring the Underlying Assumptions of the Three Structure Model (Part 18) | The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s