Recently, we’ve been noting the pushback against “neurobollocks”—the urge to apply random neuroscience findings to absolutely everything ( see here and here.)
Here’s a vid of some key players:
Soul on the slab: is there no limit to what neuroscience can do?
(Transcript available.)
Intro:Despite the tremendous potential of breakthroughs in neuroscience, there is now increasing disquiet at the alleged exaggerations made in its name. Critics argue the overzealous application of brain science undermines notions of free will and responsibility, reducing all human behaviour to crude determinism. Meanwhile, the supposed unlocking of the human mind has attracted fashionable enthusiasm far beyond science: policy makers, pollsters, artists, lawyers now see neuroscience as the key to unlocking everything from why consumers make certain choices to crime. Are they spouting ‘neurobollocks’ or are we less autonomous than we think? Filmed at the Battle of Ideas festival at the Barbican, this debate will fire more than a few neurons. The speakers are: Julian Baggini; Dr Bill Durodié; Professor Geraint Rees; Dr Sally Satel and the Chair is Claire Fox.
Note: In current lingo, “less autonomous than we think” means “There really isn’t a mind, let alone free will, but we don’t like putting it that way because it raises questions we can’t yet suppress. Trust us.”
Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose