Any friendly philosophers or scientists fancy getting together for a discussion on G+ Hangouts in the next few days?
UPDATE: The Hangout is planned for 21/2/2013 1730 GMT. Comment here or tweet @tom_hartley for an invitation. You will need to provide your preferred gmail address (but you should do this privately, e.g., by twitter DM or by adding me on G+).
In an earlier post, I explained why I sometimes feel that reason is greatly overrated; people often leave unnoticed gaps in an explanation and are not good at spotting these. In addition we are all prone to various cognitive biases which incline us to believe things when we shouldn’t and not to believe things when we should.
This post was provoked by a discussion with a UK-based professor (let’s call her Rebecca Smith, not her real name) who mentioned on twitter that she had received an inquiry about a PhD application by email from someone addressing her as “Hey Rebecca!” Was this a faux-pas on the applicant’s part?
This rather technical post is a response to a recent Observer article by Vaughan Bell. In it he follows up on a recent internet discussion around the validity or otherwise of fMRI methods. A blog post by StokesBlog responded. I must admit I hesitate to step into the fray. I think “flaws” in neuroimaging methods are sometimes overstated, but I don’t want people to think I am flawed, so perhaps I should keep my head down. Oh well, here goes…
In previous posts, I described the science behind the Four Mountains Test, a memory test which we developed using computer generated landscapes to assess the ability to recognize places from their layout even when the viewpoint changes. The test was designed from the outset to depend on a part of the brain, the hippocampus, which is important in forming new memories of the events we experience but also in maintaining a sense of direction and keeping track of where we are as we move about. We found that patients with damage to the hippocampus had particular difficulty with the test.