- Joined
- Aug 19, 2005
- Messages
- 237
- Reaction score
- 1
I presented recently on how neuroscience informs clinical practice (and vice versa). I spoke to clinically oriented individuals who may lack knowledge about the brain.
Although all of my statements were framed as tentative hypotheses, I did make a major statement that many people had a problem with:
"If a person has significant changes in thinking/behavior, there must be 'some kind' of corresponding change wihin the brain"
I don't understand how people could think otherwise really, and would like to have some feedback as to why this statement could be false or should be reframed as tentative.
There are many bodily diseases that are out there, and we're unsure as to how they are caused and how they work (like the brain), yet we still assume them to be biological (we don't say it's a working hypothesis) and we don't think that these diseases for example, could be caused by someone putting a 'hex' or 'voodoo' curse on an individual. Maybe I just don't understand.
Friendly opinions welcome.
Although all of my statements were framed as tentative hypotheses, I did make a major statement that many people had a problem with:
"If a person has significant changes in thinking/behavior, there must be 'some kind' of corresponding change wihin the brain"
I don't understand how people could think otherwise really, and would like to have some feedback as to why this statement could be false or should be reframed as tentative.
There are many bodily diseases that are out there, and we're unsure as to how they are caused and how they work (like the brain), yet we still assume them to be biological (we don't say it's a working hypothesis) and we don't think that these diseases for example, could be caused by someone putting a 'hex' or 'voodoo' curse on an individual. Maybe I just don't understand.
Friendly opinions welcome.