Talk:Neuroscience: Difference between revisions
Tdschmanke (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
== Neuroimaging as a major branch- theme of research == |
== Neuroimaging as a major branch- theme of research == |
||
I would like to add links within the Major Branches - Themes of Research to the Neuroimaging material here at the Wiki. Currently there is no mention of clinically based work with imaging brain structure and metabolism which has added so much to the field. For example, the Brain mapping project |
I would like to add links within the Major Branches - Themes of Research to the Neuroimaging material here at the Wiki. Currently there is no mention of clinically based work with imaging brain structure and metabolism which has added so much to the field. For example, the Brain mapping project at UCLA or the development of the PET scan by Micheal Phelps. |
||
There is already a section on neuroimaging here at the Wiki. |
There is already a section on neuroimaging here at the Wiki. |
Revision as of 21:31, 8 May 2009
Template:WikiProject Bannershell
Slightly meta question
How is it that Neuroscience is not a topic area???
Two comments
First, the postulate ” Some researchers believe that cognitive neuroscience provides a bottom-up approach to understanding the mind and consciousness that is complementary to, or may replace, the top-down approach of psychology” is a mere speculation. The top-down/bottom-up debate in psychology was going on before the field of neuroscience emerged, and it is unlikely to be resolved by neuroscience in any near future. One could even claim that the fMRI-technique widely used within cognitive neuroscience actually is a top-down approach. It is in some sense in the name itself: "FUNCTIONAL magnetic resonance imaging".
- Psyklic 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)I agree -- I have never heard of psychology as being the "top-down approach," although I can somewhat see where that comes from. If anything, I would consider AI to be the main "top-down approach" since researchers begin with high-level features then try to break them down into working pieces.
Second, do you have any concrete reference to people claiming that psychology is a sub-field of neuroscience? I've never read anybody claiming this. Are there actually people saying this? Biological psychology is obviously only one subfield of psychology. There are other fields such as social psychology, health psychology, personality and so on. Are all these a part of neuroscience?
- Psyklic 21:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)I agree with this as well -- neuroscience is more an inclusive group of fields than a specific field, and the mentioned branches of psychology do not fall within its scope.
Having said these things, I like the approach taken in the article. I just think that the text is not optimally organized.
Neuroscience Template
How about a template for neuroscience like the template for psychology (right side of page):
Part of a series on |
Psychology |
---|
--Nectarflowed 10:34, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, but are the distinctions so clear? Sayeth 16:36, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Neuroscience & Neurobiology
I've read in one glossary a definition of neuroscience as technically being within psychology rather than biology, while neurobiology is within biology. Wikipedia currently has neurobiology redirect to neuroscience. Can anyone explain the distinction between neuroscience and neurobiology? --Nectarflowed 11:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This is very difficult because there is even some ambiguity within the neuroscience community. "Neuroscience" is a blanket term that refers to all the specific fields that study the nervous system. In some sense psychology is actually of sub field of neuroscience (though there are some mind/body theorists that would argue it goes the other way). Neurobiology is specifically the the study of the biology of the nervous system. Now that overlapps with neurophysiology which studies physiological propoerties of the nervous system which necessarily involve biological processes.Goferwiki 10:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- My current understanding is that neurobiology is strictly related to the biological anatomy and functions of the nervous system and brain. Neuroscience appears to be a bit broader category than neurobiology although I think the distinction is slight and for all practical purposes, these two terms may be synonymous. However, I don't see neuroscience as a sub-category of psychology (as the earlier poster eluded to). I see the fields of psychology and neuroscience as quite different beasts although modern-day psychology is beginning to look more and more like neuroscience. Psychology delves into theories of the mind that would not likely hold much water in contemporary neuroscience (ie. Freudian psychology, Jungian psychology, etc.). Even Aristotle's 'psychology' is far afield from today's neuroscience. Yet, if we suggest that psychology is a field where the history of the study of mind is examined, then psychology would incorporate neuroscience as a modern theory of mind. Philoprof (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Philoprof
population coding
The "population coding" hyperlink in the text is invalid, while there's an entry "population encoding" in Wikipedia. Do they refer to the same thing? If so, maybe we could link them?
- The most commonly used term is "population coding". I've moved the contents from "population encoding" to a new population coding page. That page needs a lot of work though... semiconscious (talk · home) 04:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
What does this article need?
The easiest way to expand this article is for us to suggest the section headers it needs and then create and develop them. One way to do this is to look at comparable articles (cardiology, for example - a list t the moment). Anyone have any suggestions? --Oldak Quill 00:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- An awful lot of Cardiology is just a list of disorders.. is that the structure we want to copy? However, I think sections like Anatomy/Physiology and also a look at Methods in Neuroscience would be useful. Maybe also some history? I know some of this stuff is also over on the Brain page, and I'm not sure where it fits better.aelscha 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Neurosurgery
I believe that neurosuegery should be added to Fiels in neuroscience. Neurosurgeons are as important of neuroscientists as anyone else.
Online Neuroscience Textbooks
This section should probably be removed for the time-being. Currently, the links are dead. Philoprof (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Philoprof
revisions as of august 2006
This is an important article and right now it's not that great. Several things, firstly the history of neuroscience is NOT the same as the history of brain. We need someone to write a comprehensive review of the history of neuroscience. There needs to be more material, if only parsed from Kandel's text book. I've cleaned it up quite a bit. Let's try to make the section more like other major entries on disciplines. I think I'll try to use tables.
Is anyone around? I'm still not done yet with the Computational neuroscience entry. we also need a portal for neuroscience!!sluox
New Portal up and running
I would appreciate, on behalf of us three at Portal:Neuroscience if we could have some help in maintaining. Thanks. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
What is this? I have never heard of it? No Google hits either (except this very WP page). The content has only one line pertinent to the topic. Should it be deleted as 'non-notable'? I think so at least. Shushruth \talk page \ contribs 18:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shushruth. I vaguely remember reading about this one but it doesn't strike me as particularly important. I'll doublecheck though. Newtonspeed 03:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Link Spam
The external links section is getting out of control. We don't need links to every graduate program or journal on the subject.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
--Selket 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Linking to sites with related content is a natural extension of the Wikipedia project. While I in general agree with the idea of filtering sites with commercial functions, if you only allow sites represented by your own circle of contacts, you are going to quickly lose contributers. In the end this will just be a commercial for your own, selected, viewpoints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.224 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. However, this is more than just an issue of commercial links. Just imagine if every university with a neuroscience program or department put a link to their webpage here. It would become unmanageably cluttered. That said, are you referring to the recent edits about a link to a page about brain damage? I looked at that link, and am not convinced that it should have been deleted. If you'd like to indicate here why that particular link is appropriate, I'd be happy to consider adding it back, either to this article or to another. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the reason I removed it is that the web page is awful -- it's one of those things that only looks decent if you view it in a fully darkened room with the browser set to fullscreen. But the more important reason is that it would open the floodgates -- there are a hundred sites that are at least equally useful. DMOZ is the place for all these things. People should not be using Wikipedia to advertise their web sites. Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- I only looked at the page briefly, and I see your point about the aesthetics of the page. I tend to think that we can deal with the floodgate issue on a case-by-case basis, and it's often a matter of how much useful and verifiable information a particular link provides. But I don't feel strongly about this particular case either way. I suppose an argument could be made that, if the link were anywhere here, it should be at a more specialized page, like traumatic brain injury or brain damage. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- Part of the reason I removed it is that the web page is awful -- it's one of those things that only looks decent if you view it in a fully darkened room with the browser set to fullscreen. But the more important reason is that it would open the floodgates -- there are a hundred sites that are at least equally useful. DMOZ is the place for all these things. People should not be using Wikipedia to advertise their web sites. Looie496 (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Doctoral Degrees in Neuroscience
I know that colleges award both BAs and BSes for neuroscience, simply nobody takes a bachelor's degree in the field seriously regardless.
Universities also award both MDs and PhDs in neuroscience though, which I'd expect have very different requirements, and implications. On the other hand, I met an MD in neuroscience who does nothing but administer neuropsychiatric tests, which certainly isn't brain surgery or neuroimaging (in fact, I know more about neuroimaging than he did).
So it'd be interesting to know what the difference in neuroscientific certification across various subfields, and what privileges they bring (like diagnostic and prescriptive powers).--71.192.116.13 (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
The SfN sentence removed by an IP editor
Let's discuss, please. I let this removal pass when I saw it, because it seemed to me that the sentence was at best out of place at that location -- "Neuroscience" should be defined without invoking the SfN. A mention somewhere later in the article would seem completely appropriate to me; but I don't have strong feelings about any of this. In any case there is too much reverting going on here. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize! Woops, I hadn't seen this very reasonable comment when I made my most recent edit, and that was my fault. Anyway, I think that, on the one hand, Crusio is quite correct that the original version was too U.S.-centric. But I also think that it's wrong to solve that problem the way the IP editor did, by just deleting the whole thing. I'm afraid I don't know what EBBS is, and didn't find the info in a hurried Google search, but I think the solution is to add that information before the SfN information, rather than delete. My edit summary says that more briefly, and anyone who finds my edit too ugly please feel free to revert me. I won't mind that, but I don't agree with just deleting it and leaving it deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry about "EBBS", that's the "European Brain and Behaviour Society, as far as I know - but I am not an WP:RS -:) the oldest neuroscience society around. I agree with Looie496 that this doesn't really belong in the lead, but somewhere more below. Sorry, should have explained that here before reverting again... I guess we're agreed it's not a major point :-) I'll add this to the existing text and leave it up to others to move it down. --Crusio (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, and you are absolutely right about making the page less U.S.-centric. I think the new information is a real improvement. Although it isn't really a move down lower on the page, I've made an edit that I think may make the lead flow better, with the first paragraph centering on defining neuroscience, and the second describing how the field is evolving. In my opinion, it works pretty well this way, but see what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be okay to add a mention of Hippocrates to make "much earlier" more concrete? He (or they, as some people believe) wrote a treatise on epilepsy that's the earliest example of neuroscience I know of. Looie496 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Seems excellent to me. --Crusio (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Go for it! The "much earlier" has been bothering me, too, as being weasly. I suppose that, as this progresses, we might eventually want to have a "history of neuroscience" section lower down. (Woops again, there actually is a history section already. I think this isn't my day.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Do you think it would be okay to add a mention of Hippocrates to make "much earlier" more concrete? He (or they, as some people believe) wrote a treatise on epilepsy that's the earliest example of neuroscience I know of. Looie496 (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, and you are absolutely right about making the page less U.S.-centric. I think the new information is a real improvement. Although it isn't really a move down lower on the page, I've made an edit that I think may make the lead flow better, with the first paragraph centering on defining neuroscience, and the second describing how the field is evolving. In my opinion, it works pretty well this way, but see what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Neuroimaging as a major branch- theme of research
I would like to add links within the Major Branches - Themes of Research to the Neuroimaging material here at the Wiki. Currently there is no mention of clinically based work with imaging brain structure and metabolism which has added so much to the field. For example, the Brain mapping project at UCLA or the development of the PET scan by Micheal Phelps.
There is already a section on neuroimaging here at the Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_imaging
I believe this work also justifies a section with the main body of the article as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdschmanke (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm, I always have great difficulty seeing how to handle things like this, there are so many options. I wonder if we should try to duplicate the way the Society for Neuroscience does this? (Which I don't remember completely off the top of my head.) Looie496 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)