The epistemological boundaries of neurosciences: the fallacy of neuro-whatever
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rp.v11n2a08Keywords:
Neurosciences, Neuroeducation, Epistemology, History, Philosophy.Abstract
Currently the use of the prefix “neuro” has been extended in different expressions and different disciplines. Its use is not always justified. In this article of reflection, the aim is to evaluate the nature of neurosciences to demonstrate that their philosophical and scientific evolution proceeds through dependency and epistemological continuity. If these parameters are met, the neurosciences are reaching their epistemological autonomy and only there a new neuroscientific discipline emerges. If not met, epistemological problems arise and pseudo-explanations can be derived that lead to the birth and proliferation of neuro-whatever. The article begins with an analysis of the nature of neuroscience and a review of its object of study. In addition, the structure of the neuroscientific explanation is discussed. In the second part, the supposed epistemological legitimacy and explanatory validity of neuroeducation is questioned, as a possible case of a neuro-whatever. It is concluded that the scientific and technological explosion of neurosciences and a popular and academic neurocentric culture have led to an unwarranted increase in a series of neuro-whatever they appear to be as legitimate philosophical, scientific and technological developments, but not in all cases comply with some inescapable epistemological parameters.
Downloads
References
Alferink, L. A., y Farmer-Dougan, V. (2010). Brain-(not) based education: dangers of misunderstanding and misapplication of neuroscience research. Exceptionality 18(1), 42–52.
Barbara, J. G. (2010). La controverse Cajal–Golgi: Stockholm, 1906. Morphologie, 94(304), 4-7.
Bennett, M. R. (1999a). One hundred years of adrenaline: the discovery of autoreceptors. Clinical Autonomic Research, 9(3), 145-159. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02281628.
Bennett, M. R. (1999b). The early history of the synapse: from Plato to Sherrington. Brain Research Bulletin, 50(2), 95-118.
Blair, J. y Frith, U. (2000). Neurocognitive explanations of the antisocial personality disorders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 10, S66-S81. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm.2000.10.s1.s66.
Bruer, J. T. (1997). Education and the brain: a bridge too far. Educational Researcher, 26(8), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026008004.
Bunge, M. (1960). La ciencia, su método y su filosofía. Buenos Aires: Siglo XX.
Campos, A. L. (2010). Neuroeducación: uniendo las neurociencias y la educación en la búsqueda del desarrollo humano. La educación. Revista Digital, 143, 1-14.
Coltheart, M. (2001). Assumptions and methods in cognitive neuropsychology. En B. Rapp (Ed.), The Handbook of Cognitive Neuropsychology: What Deficits Reveal About the Human Mind (pp. 3-22). Philadelphia, USA: Psychology Press.
Corredor, K. y Cardenas, F. (2017). Neuro-«lo que sea»: inicio y auge de una pseudociencia para el siglo XXI. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 49(2), 89-90.
Crick F. (1999). The impact of molecular biology on neuroscience. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 354(1392), 2021–2025. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1999.0541.
Cubelli, R. (2005). The History of Neuropsychology According to Norman Geschwind: Continuity and Discontinuity in the Development of Science. Cortex, 41(2), 271-274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70913-4.
Frazzetto, G. y Anker, S. (2009). Neuroculture. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 815-821. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2736.
Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science: a history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books Inc.
Goss, C. M. (1937). The Historical Background of Schwann's Cell Theory. Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 10(2), 125–144.
Hanson, N. R. (1977). Patrones de descubrimiento: observación y explicación. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Harley, T. A. (2004). Does cognitive neuropsychology have a future? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290342000131.
Horvath, J. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). A Bridge Too Far – Revisited: Reframing Bruer's Neuroeducation Argument for Modern Science of Learning Practitioners. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 377. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00377.
Katona, G. (2002). The evolution of the concept of psyche from Homer to Aristotle. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22(1), 28-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0091193.
Kuhl, E. (2016). Unfolding the brain. Nature Physics. 12, 533–534. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3641.
Legrenzi, P., Umilta, C., y Anderson, F. (2011). Neuromania: On the limits of brain science. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.
Levine, D. N. (2007). Sherrington's "The Integrative action of the nervous system": a centennial appraisal. Journal of the Neurological Sciences, 253(1-2), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2006.12.002.
López-Muñoz, F. y Alamo, C. (2009). Historical evolution of the neurotransmission concept. Journal of Neural Transmission, 116, 515–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-009-0213-1.
López-Muñoz, F., Boya, J., y Alamo, C. (2006). Neuron theory, the cornerstone of neuroscience, on the centenary of the Nobel Prize award to Santiago Ramón y Cajal. Brain Research Bulletin, 70(4–6), 391–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresbull.2006.07.010.
Muzur, A. y Rincic, I. (2013). Neurocriticism: a contribution to the study of the etiology, phenomenology, and ethics of the use and abuse of the prefix neuro-, JAHR, 4(7), 545-555.
Ocampo, J. C. (2019). Sobre lo “neuro” en la neuroeducación: de la psicologización a la neurologización de la escuela. Sophia: Colección de la Educación, 26(1), 141-169.
Olivé, L. Y Pérez, A. R. (1989). Filosofía de la ciencia: teoría y observación. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas / Siglo XXI Editores.
Patten, K. E., y Campbell, S. R. (2011). Introduction: Educational neuroscience. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00700.x.
Pearce, J. M. S. (2009). Links between nerves and glands: The story of adrenaline. ACNR, 9, 22-29.
Pérez-Aguilar, L. G. (2011). Evolucionismos y ciencias históricas: darwinismo vs. lamarckismo en arqueología. SPAL - Revista de Prehistoria y Arqueología, 20, 23-41. http://hdl.handle.net/11441/34452.
Pérez, M. (2011). El mito del cerebro creador. Cuerpo, conducta y cultura. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Restrepo, J. E. (2019). Desarrollo cognitivo: ecología cultural. México: Manual Moderno.
Scruton, R. (2012). Brain drain. Neuroscience wants to be the answer to everything. It isn’t. Recuperado de: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/03/brain-drain/.
Simon, H. A. y Kaplan, C. (1988). Foundations of cognitive sciences: overviewe. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Tallinen, T., Chung, J. Y., Rousseau, F., Girard, N., Lefèvre, J. y Mahadevan, L. (2016). On the growth and form of cortical convolutions. Nature Physics, 12, 588–593. https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3632.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in Life. Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Toro, R., y Burnod, Y. (2005). A Morphogenetic Model for the Development of Cortical Convolutions. Cerebral Cortex, 15(12), 1900–1913. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhi068.
Vacariu, G. y Vacariu, M. (2013). Troubles with Cognitive Neuroscience. Philosophia Scientiæ, 17(2), 151–170. DOI : 10.4000/philosophiascientiae.864
Valenstein, E. S. (2002). The Discovery of Chemical Neurotransmitters. Brain and Cognition 49, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1006/brcg.2001.1487.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1976). Teoría general de los sistemas: fundamentos, desarrollo, aplicaciones. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Vrecko S. (2006). Folk neurology and the remaking of identity. Molecular Interventions, 6(6), 300-303.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista de Psicología Universidad de Antioquia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Texts submitted for evaluation to the Journal of Psychology of the University of Antioquia must have never been published before, nor been accepted for future publication by any other journal.
Upon the Journal’s acceptance for publication of submitted material, the author partially transfers his/her rights on the article, preserving those relative to its non-commercial use and academic circulation as a free-access file.
Except if otherwise decided, this Journal’s content is covered by a Creative Commons licence “Attribution - Non-commercial – share a like” Colombia 4.0. The licence can be checked out here.
