What a fabulous book! Ironically, it is ‘‘fabulous’’ to a degree that will unsettle many scientists, as Ramachandran’s ratio of fables-to-facts may exceed what they can tolerate.And Brugger ends on a similar note:
I think I will recommend this book to any of my friends who do not shun pop (neuro)science in principle.
In his rebuttal, Rama responds:
[Brugger] doesn’t name any of these mysterious scientists but perhaps he is referring to his immediate colleagues. It’s the old reviewer’s trick of creating the impression that other people concur with his views. Elsewhere, he says ‘‘I will recommend this book to any of my friends who do not shun pop neuro(science) in principle’’, subtly implying that The Tell-Tale Brain is merely awork of popularisation.I'm not so sure the implication was subtle. In any case it seems we have a debate here that TalkingBrains might help to resolve empirically in the form of a survey.
For those of you card carrying scientists who have read the book, it is more a work of pop neuroscience? Or more a work of serious science? What do you think? I'll post a poll soon.
Brugger, P. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2012 Jul;17(4):351-8
Ramachandran, V.S. Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2012 Jul;17(4):359-66
2 comments:
I haven't read this new book yet so I can't comment on its scientific integrity. But I've always thought that the animosity that scientists who write pop science type books seem to engender, at least within the fields that I know, and for whatever reasons, is rather unfortunate. Personally, I have Rama and Pinker to thank for my career choice, because they were the guys who wrote engaging, accessible books that inspired me when I was in junior high -- without them I wouldn't have known what cognitive science was. Even if I came to disagree with various aspects of their thinking, even if I realize now how much is science and how much is "fabulous" as Brugger puts it, for me this kind of writing still has its place.
Hi Bridget,
You bring up a good point. I think it is true that scientists who write trade books are sometimes viewed as selling out a serious scientific career for popular fame or fortune. And I think this is unfortunate. Science needs to be communicated to the public in an engaging and accessible way. The question is whether the science that is communicated is legitimate, i.e., based on a rigorous analysis facts (such that it can be taken seriously by bench scientists) or whether the ideas are just wild speculations spun together into a nice story. I haven't read the book so I'm not at all judging but that is the impression I got from the review, i.e., that some of it is not to be taken all that seriously.
Post a Comment