• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Frontiers in Human Neuroscience >What’s so critical about Critical Neuroscience? Rethinking experiment enacting critique
【2h】

What’s so critical about Critical Neuroscience? Rethinking experiment enacting critique

机译：批判性神经科学有什么重要意义？重新思考实验发表评论

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In the midst of on-going hype about the power and potency of the new brain sciences, scholars within “Critical Neuroscience” have called for a more nuanced and sceptical neuroscientific knowledge-practice. Drawing especially on the Frankfurt School, they urge neuroscientists towards a more critical approach—one that re-inscribes the objects and practices of neuroscientific knowledge within webs of social, cultural, historical and political-economic contingency. This paper is an attempt to open up the black-box of “critique” within Critical Neuroscience itself. Specifically, we argue that limiting enactments of critique to the invocation of context misses the force of what a highly-stylized and tightly-bound neuroscientific experiment can actually do. We show that, within the neuroscientific experiment itself, the world-excluding and context-denying “rules of the game” may also enact critique, in novel and surprising forms, while remaining formally independent of the workings of society, and culture, and history. To demonstrate this possibility, we analyze the Optimally Interacting Minds (OIM) paradigm, a neuroscientific experiment that used classical psychophysical methods to show that, in some situations, people worked better as a collective, and not as individuals—a claim that works precisely against reactionary tendencies that prioritize individual over collective agency, but that was generated and legitimized entirely within the formal, context-denying conventions of neuroscientific experimentation. At the heart of this paper is a claim that it was precisely the rigors and rules of the experimental game that allowed these scientists to enact some surprisingly critical, and even radical, gestures. We conclude by suggesting that, in the midst of large-scale neuroscientific initiatives, it may be “experiment”, and not “context”, that forms the meeting-ground between neuro-biological and socio-political research practices.
机译：在持续不断地宣传新的大脑科学的力量和潜能的过程中，“关键神经科学”领域的学者呼吁采取更为细微和怀疑的神经科学知识实践。他们特别利用法兰克福学派，敦促神经科学家采取更为严格的方法-在社会，文化，历史和政治经济偶然事件的网络中重新记录神经科学知识的对象和实践。本文试图在批判性神经科学内部打开“批判”的黑匣子。具体而言，我们认为，将批评的制定仅限于情境的调用，会错过高度程式化且关系紧密的神经科学实验所能真正发挥的作用。我们表明，在神经科学实验本身中，排除世界和否认上下文的“游戏规则”也可能以新颖和令人惊讶的形式进行批判，同时仍然正式独立于社会，文化和历史的运作。为了证明这种可能性，我们分析了最佳交互思维（OIM）范式，这是一种神经科学实验，它使用经典的心理物理学方法来证明，在某些情况下，人们作为一个整体而不是作为一个个体，可以更好地工作-这种主张恰恰相反反动倾向使个人优先于集体代理，但完全是在神经科学实验的形式化，否定语境的惯例中产生和合法化的。本文的核心是声称，正是实验游戏的严格性和规则使这些科学家能够做出一些出人意料的，甚至是激进的手势。我们的结论是，在大规模的神经科学计划中，可能是“实验”而非“背景”构成了神经生物学和社会政治研究实践之间的交汇地。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号