{"id":3823,"date":"2012-11-28T08:12:48","date_gmt":"2012-11-28T08:12:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cerebyte.com\/?p=3823"},"modified":"2012-11-28T08:12:48","modified_gmt":"2012-11-28T08:12:48","slug":"neuroscience-and-junk-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cerebyte.com\/2012\/11\/28\/neuroscience-and-junk-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Neuroscience and junk science"},"content":{"rendered":"

\t\t\t\t\u00a0By William Seidman<\/strong>\n\nThis piece<\/a> in the New York Times<\/em> raises good points on the uses and misuses of neuroscience.\n\nHave you noticed how much junk science exists, and how many claims are made in the name of “brain chemistry”?\n\nMost of the junk science is due to over-generalizing the implications of legitimate MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) research.\n\nWhile there is a basis for these generalization \u2013 MRIs show that the brain responds to certain stimuli in predictable ways and will re-wire itself (called neuroplasticity) \u2013 the implications of other connections is a stretch.\n\nI take a very narrow view of the use of neuroscience. Research has shown that learning, at any age, is a rewiring of the connections between neurons. Practice and\/or intense experience causes wiring to form or re-form.\n\nResearch has shown that:\n\n\n