Eve Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 Sorry for another nitpick, but the 10% myth has been busted for a long time. SO, how much of the brain do we use again Disgracian? Show me. We actually have highly accurate images and have had for some time now. Knowledge in this area seems to have advanced quite a way since last you checked. Nope. We use computers to map what we think is happening. Show me otherwise please. Err, yes it is. The scientific method is indeed man-made. You haven't even said anything that claims otherwise. I am sure that you are aware that the scientific method involves many different forms of investigation. I am favouring the qualitative method, with a phenomenological stance for my research degree. Subjective experience is a vital aspect of the sciences. I could go on to explain further but really what is the point? It is a waste of my time because it is a circular arguement which is not edifying. .. So, I accept that you have made up your own mind about matters of faith Disgracian and will react to matters of faith with scorn. I am not going to take this personally. Your choice. I know what I know and it is enough to trust God entirely. Take care, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
Enema Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 I don't think he's reacting to your faith. Rather, the misinformation about neuroscience you have presented here. I also note that your response doesn't have anything to back it up. Disgracian was kind enough to reference his post. Do the same. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Eve - Scroll to the bottom of the Wiki links and follow the sources. Educate yourself. Your churlish attitude and attempts to bluff me with big words do not impress. As was pointed out, you offered nothing of substance for me to respond to. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Eve Posted March 23, 2009 Share Posted March 23, 2009 Enema and Disgracian. I have looked at various studies (easily found via Google if you want to try) .. and still see the tensions between speculating and evidencing the uptake of various chemicals via the synapse. Hence we have various methods of bringing this process to life via neuroscience and consequently have to test and re-test drugs before use on people. We were discussing this not even two weeks ago at Uni.. But I am going to have to clarify my postition as I now have more questions .. I will ask my Professor and get back to you. The main part to note is that neuroscience is about mapping the brain and the experiments undertaken are a process. That was my point... how process is evidence in itself. Take care, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
sb129 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Nope. We use computers to map what we think is happening. Show me otherwise please. Three words come to mind... Scanning Elecron Microscope And for the record, a CAT scan doesn't use a computer to generate and image of what we "think" is happening. It is far more sophisticated and accurate than that, and i'm sure that people who use CT technology every day would be appalled to know that people out there think its merely guesswork. Not to mention those who invented it and poor old Roentgen would be turning in his grave- those xrays were real enough to kill him! The computer analyses the data from a series of xrays to show the image of what is actually happening. Xrays are not reliant on computers- they can be done without computers, however computers make analysis of the data more standardised and easier to interpret. Qualitative research is not as accurate and doesn't provide as reliable, consistent, measurable results that can be statistically analysed the way quantitative research does. Without decent quantitative research to back it up,alot of qualitative research is hypothesis and speculation. Link to post Share on other sites
Eve Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 Hello Sb129, Here is an article with outlines the main issues at hand. Sorry but it isnt a wiki entry, but I hope that you find it interesting anyhow. I hope that this clarifies my posistion. If not, get back to me. Although some parts of this conversation have been challenging ... I like that. http://www.scribd.com/doc/3634300/What-we-can-do-and-what-we-cannot-do-with-fMRI Regarding qualitative study, yeah, some people say that it is not as stringent as a form of statistical research. Depends on the focus I suppose... as with everything. Certainly more rich with information and perspective. I think that it is good to hear peoples voices and what they really think and have experienced. Especially if related to their experience of medical treatment. As I am sure you know, quantiative analysis can still be employed within a qualitative study, I may do this later, who knows! Right now I am gathering information. Its great that others usually go on to pick out areas they want to quantify from many qualitative research findings, dont you think? Take care, Eve xx Link to post Share on other sites
sb129 Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 MRI is simply one form of medical imaging. I am always open to reading things other than wiki entries, in fact I prefer it however google searches usually flag their entries up first, and its quick and easy for a site like this. I have a tertiary education and two professional degrees in a health science- I know better than to quote wiki in my professional life. Yes, of course MRI has its restrictions. As do CAT, xrays etc. Medicine HAS advanced in leaps and bounds since their use became commonplace, and if it was simply a "guesswork" technique, this wouldn't be the case. That is what I am challenging YOU on. It seems that you still don't quite grasp the significance or the concept of this. However, it isn't the ONLY kind of imaging available to us, and that was what you were questioning, and I was responding to. You wanted to know if there was a kind of imaging technique other than these, and I gave it to you. A scanning electron microscope is so powerful, it can see individual neurons. It is not "clever diagrams of what we think might be happening". It is what it actually there. ITS limitations are that it can't be used on living specimens. However, much can be learned from using it regardless. We can debate this all day- as its stands, I use medical imaging on a daily basis and I know its limitations and boundaries. It is no substitute for good clinical knowledge and technique, however it can enhance both of these greatly. Without it however, my job would be extremely difficult, and there would be alot more "guesswork", and guesswork leads to mistakes being made. Mistakes in healthcare, as I am sure you can appreciate, are asking for trouble. Link to post Share on other sites
Eve Posted March 24, 2009 Share Posted March 24, 2009 MRI is simply one form of medical imaging. I am always open to reading things other than wiki entries, in fact I prefer it however google searches usually flag their entries up first, and its quick and easy for a site like this. I have a tertiary education and two professional degrees in a health science- I know better than to quote wiki in my professional life. Yes, of course MRI has its restrictions. As do CAT, xrays etc. Medicine HAS advanced in leaps and bounds since their use became commonplace, and if it was simply a "guesswork" technique, this wouldn't be the case. That is what I am challenging YOU on. It seems that you still don't quite grasp the significance or the concept of this. However, it isn't the ONLY kind of imaging available to us, and that was what you were questioning, and I was responding to. You wanted to know if there was a kind of imaging technique other than these, and I gave it to you. A scanning electron microscope is so powerful, it can see individual neurons. It is not "clever diagrams of what we think might be happening". It is what it actually there. ITS limitations are that it can't be used on living specimens. However, much can be learned from using it regardless. We can debate this all day- as its stands, I use medical imaging on a daily basis and I know its limitations and boundaries. It is no substitute for good clinical knowledge and technique, however it can enhance both of these greatly. Without it however, my job would be extremely difficult, and there would be alot more "guesswork", and guesswork leads to mistakes being made. Mistakes in healthcare, as I am sure you can appreciate, are asking for trouble. Ok, I had you down as a 'wiki whore', who had decided to join in for some conflict. Very briefly, I am looking at things from a pharmacological perspective. Going beyond the basics of cell structure we have a bridge between what is happening chemically and structurally. This is not visible to the eye [agreed]. The techniques used are tested on animals and are a process of guesswork (of course its guesswork, refined, but still guesswork) which is tested and analysed. Hence many medicines give lenthy possible side effects because just because we can see the neuron it still does not guarantee all neurons will be effected in the same way, in every human system. Many examples were cited in the review I provided and indepth reasons given. So yes, I said guesswork. Diagrams and computer aided design aim to bridge the gaps we are trying to quantify because of the gap between animal biology and human biology. So yes, I said, 'clever diagrams of what we think is happening...' because they are .. Before any drug goes on the market all the loose ends have to be tied up, hence it takes years for them to be passed. Please correct me if I am wrong... but I think that is essentially it. *Sorry to Quinch for taking over his thread* In re-reading my post, maybe it came across as a bit niave?... I dont know. Its difficult to be conversational and cover all angles with such matters. But I was speaking from the perspective of how pharmacology works, not healthcare after the event. In fact I was not that bothered about the example at all. My original point was how a process though unknown in nature can be part of a larger picture not automatically visible. This relates to my sense of faith, in that just because we have not found something as yet, it does not mean that it does not exist. Hence all process is relevant. Take care, Eve xx P.s I have to go to London tomorrow so will not be able to answer any further comments for a while. Link to post Share on other sites
sb129 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Perhaps you should have been a bit more specific? Pharmacology is tested quantitatively, to a point where it can be standardised. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts