Neuroscience: Psychotherapy’s Executioner?

I wrote another post called Neuroscience: Psychotherapy’s Executioner? for You can read it here.

One Reply to “Neuroscience: Psychotherapy’s Executioner?”

  1. I agree, both science as a discipline and the scientist/practitioners are less than candid in trying to maintain that they are being “objective” in their observations. While in graduate school in Linguistics, I was told that publishing evidence of language universals was “unacceptable” and that if I detected universal linguistic patterns or data that seemed to show interrelationships between widely separated language populations, I should keep them to myself, if I wanted to “get ahead” in the Linguistic community. Some of the current theories in cosmology are more faith based than any religion. Not only is science’s knowledge base limited, in the Godel sense scientists many times do not even know what they do not know. I have read recent comments in Scientific American of scientists that assume they can comment on religious experience when they have had no such experience themselves and deny that anyone else can either.

    Good ideas and discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.