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. . 2012 Jul;17(4):359-66