<<Well, I'd be 100% dismissive of your astounding 'flexible' view, and I do indeed find it amusing that you can make pronouncements/judgments of any kind in the neurosciences based on such an incredibly tenuous understanding of the most fundamental pillar of scientific methodology>>
Ron, you'd been on relatively good behavior lately, guess you must have cut back on your meds a little prematurely. The notion that you see the arbitrary selection of the 95% likelihood of a true positive, (as opposed to, for example and as I suggested, the 94% likelihood) as constituting "The most fundamental pillar of scientific methodology"--boggles the mind. Such binary, black-and-white, all-good vs all-bad thinking on your part would be more befitting to a far right-wing Republican. Or from a Piagetian perspective, it is an example of concrete thinking that is more typical of the 7-11 age range. Same thing.
Psychiatric nosology, pharmacotherapy,psychotherapy, outcome measures, statistical analyses, all of these are, or work within the context of, human-designed approximations of objective reality, whatever that may be (though perhaps you believe that you know). As such, they should be viewed and used with skepticism, not mindless adulation.
NeuroInvestment |
