Comment by RHSeeger
5 days ago
Yeah, but "we've been discovering new things for all of history, so there's likely more to discover" seems to a pretty fair assumption.
5 days ago
Yeah, but "we've been discovering new things for all of history, so there's likely more to discover" seems to a pretty fair assumption.
The point I made a few comments up is that often we start to identify the need for a new science based on observations we can't explain with our current understanding. Hydro-dynamics and electricity are examples given in the comment I replied to - but we could see those and go "wait, we can't explain this well, yet". Quantum physics, X-rays, wave-particle duality of light, and so on - we observed something and could not explain it.
My point was I don't think that's happening with neuroscience yet. We might not have a complete map yet, but we know where thoughts come from in the organ, we can watch them. Or can we? It's an open question, if people think there is more science to be done to sort out fundamentals, and we're not just in the stage of iterating on our base assumptions more, I'm OK with that, but it's not my understanding today.