Maybe I should have used the term “cognitive neuroscience” however because they always call themselves “neuroscientists” I figured I’ll do the same

100 thoughts on “Cognitive Neuroscience is a FAKE science”

  1. Many of the signitificant findings of cognitive neuroscience were related to stuff such as, that certain areas of the temporal lobes form the basis of object recognition, facial perception, that the parietal lobe froms the basis of spatial perception that guide mevements, that the medial temporal lobe is related to episodic memory and that the dorsolateral prefrontal lobes "produce" working memory. Nothing with "social neuroscience" experiments or mental health (eg. research on psychopharm).

  2. @PanLamda Your wrong I'm afraid. Yes it does have something to do with discoveries made about how the different lobes affect human behaviour however "cognitve neuroscience" overlaps with psychology and over disciplines.
    Try typing "cognitive neuroscience definition" on google and you'll see.

    Also if you type "Nita Farahany on Neuroscience and law" on YouTube, she did a good video about how cognitive neuroscience is being used.

  3. @caketheory

    "I'm wrong" lol, yes i'm wrong, i;m doing a PhD in cognition and the brain and i'm wrong. Ofcourse it overlaps with psychology. But psychology is not only psychotherapy and clinical psychology. It is also "cognitive psychology", the scientific branch of psychology that was developed in the 60s with the aim of exploring basic mental functions such as attention, perception, (short and long term) memory, reasoning, mental representations, categorization, problem solving

  4. @caketheory So some of the cognitive psychologists in the 80s and 90s started to utilize functional imaging to find correlations between these functions (e.g. attention, working memory, language etc.) with certain brain areas. Also EEG and evoked potentials was also used. It has nothing to do with the "mind control" and “deception" stuff you talk about. Try to make an educated search first before you accept whatever conspiracy stuff.

  5. Read the wiki on "cognitive psychology". I study people who have "aphasia". They have suffered a stroke in the left hemisphere and i'm giving them various tests/experiments to see how language (phonological, semantic aspects etc.) is organized in the brain. The stuffyou talk about is a very new area"social cognitive neuroscience" e.g. how people form attitudes, make decisions, respondto emotions etc. But this area still has nothing to do with psychiatry, clinical psychology and psychopharm

  6. @PanLamda Psychiatry, psychology and cognitive neuroscience are inextricably linked. Most psychiatric research organisations like NARSAD have them all working together. I've done other video's where I explain why psychology and neuropharamacolgy for mental illness are a fraud too.

    I understand your argument and I wouldn't have done a video if neuroscience was only involved in REAL disease like stroke, alzheimers and parkinsons etc. I did explain this at the start.

  7. @PanLamda Psychiatry, psychology and cognitive neuroscience are inextricably linked. Most psychiatric research organisations like NARSAD have them all working together. I've done other video's where I explain why psychology and neuropharamacolgy for mental illness are a fraud too.

    I understand your argument and I wouldn't have done a video if neuroscience was only involved in REAL disease like stroke, alzheimers and parkinsons etc. I did explain this at the start.

  8. Anyone interested in the history of how modern day neuroscience developed. I've put a video on the subject in my favourite list called "Phrenology part 1" which everybody might like.

    I recommend both parts and you'll see that phrenology (a fake science) led lobotomy (a fake science) which led to cognitive neuroscience (in my opinion a fake science).

  9. @sirpantsalot11 Thanks for the compliment haha but there is a biological test for epilepsy, the EEG. If this shows an epileptiform discharge during a clinical seizure, then the diagnosis is formally established.

    What I'm trying to say is that bipolar, schizophrenia and most psychiatric illnesses are not real because there is no biological test. Also I don't like the way neuroscience is being used to justify the biological model in psychiatry.

  10. @sirpantsalot11 In the 18th century we never had the CT, MRI, PET scanner etc. Today we have and if you can't find a disease with all these modern machines its probably because there isn't one.
    So your saying its OK to give antipsychotic medication for a dopamine imbalance in schizophrenia when the patient hasn't even had a test? You wouldn't give somebody insulin or chemotherapy unless you were sure they needed it.

  11. Anyone interested in the history of how modern day neuroscience developed. I've put a video on the subject in my favourite list called "Phrenology part 1" which everybody might like.

    I recommend both parts and you'll see that phrenology (a fake science) led lobotomy (a fake science) which led to cognitive neuroscience (in my opinion a fake science).

  12. @caketheory There are several physiological brain anomalies linked to schizophrenia, Increased ventricles (a sign of atrophy), change in neural density and abnormalities in metabolic rates in several brain areas (prefrontal cortex is consistently smaller and less active in patients with schizophrenia compared to controls). Our understanding of the disease keeps increasing. Genetic tests will be able to tell who is at risk, but gene-environment interaction is ultimately what determines who getsit

  13. @caketheory
    Phrenology was a 19th century approach to localisation of brain functioning. While phrenology itself was wrong, the modular approach to the brain was correct. Lobotomy was a medical procedure, not a science, and did what it said on the label. It was cruel, barbaric, but not "fake" in the sense that homeopathy is fake. Lastly, cognitive neuroscience arose with Gazzaniga's work on split brain patients and is a computational approach to biology, which has turned out to be substantiated

  14. Your ignorance is truly disturbing. Worse yet is the way in which you boldly embrace it. Underneath all your pretenses you are merely an enemy of progress, so absorbed in your own personal ideal of how the world should be that you seem to think speaking of that which is not as if it indeed is will somehow make it so. Most disturbing of all is that any challenge to your self-certain ideals will fall on willfully deaf ears.

  15. There is biological aetiology to most brain illnesses that we know of and it lies in the way receptor signalling functions. Without behavioural and cognitive neuroscience, research would have not have arrived at the biological pathways behind many of these disorders. Both pharmaceutical companies and genetic research are working on viable treatments. We already have prototypes of drugs that can treat most cognitive disorders we know of. Your claims are baseless buddy…

  16. I'm not talking about Parkinsons or Alzheimers I'm talking about the way neuroscience is being used to justify the biological model of psychiatry.
    Could you explain to me the biological aetiology of schizphrenia, bipolar, ADHD or depression?

  17. Here's a newsflash for the ignorant. There ARE biological tests that can be conducted on psychological diseases, such as Alzheimer's and schizophrenia. Alzheimer's disease causes the deterioration of the myelin sheath on neurons in the brain. Schizophrenia patient's brains overproduce dopamine and cause neurons to misfire. The only problem with these tests are that the patient has to be dead first.

    In other words, these neurological diseases DO exist, this is a REAL science and you are dumb.

  18. I did say to "sharocross" I'm not talking about Parkinsons or Alzheimers I'm talking about the way neuroscience is being used to justify the biological model of psychiatry.

    You've just proven what a fool you are because schizophrenia is not found at autopsy and there is no biological test for it. Neither is there a test for ADHD, depression, bipolar, conduct disorder etc etc. Yet people are given medication which affects their brain chemicals.

  19. The point I make at the beginning of the vid is that cognitive neuroscience has amalgamated real disease like stroke, tumour, parkinson’s etc with fake diseases like psychiatric ones.
    I wouldn’t have done a video if neuroscience was only concerned with real disease like alzheimer’s and parkinson’s.
    There’s a video on you tube (if you paste it) called
    “33. Nita Farahany on Neuroscience and Law – Beyond Belief 2008”.
    She explains why we need to question neuroscience.

  20. This is so inaccurate….there ARE biological markers for bipolar, ADHD, and depression. Get off the internet and get a degree. Holy fuck. Also, neuroeconomics IS a big subset of cognitive neuroscience, but it is not the whole enterprise

  21. schizophrenia is most certainly present at autopsy, it presents as a collection of brain abnormalities.
    i have to wonder if you are a scientologist, the level of sheer ignorance here is astonishing. for example, by the logic you present here you are, by extension, saying that adhd, depression etc dont exist? seriously, that is beyond ignorant!
    i think you would do well to go away and do some *actual* research in this area (learn what its called!). it is a very important field of modern science.

  22. Try typing in google search engine "schizophrenia at autopsy" and you'll see that a test of the kind doesn't exist. You haven't even bothered to do that yet.
    I'm not a scientologist and I don't like any religion.

  23. Also the whole point I'm making about ADHD not being a real disease is because its a label being used to control kids. Why should kids have to sit still in class for long periods of time if they don't want to? Compulsory education was only established in the UK during the reign of queen Victoria.

  24. What ignorant garbage. Go back to school. The funny part is you claim that neuroscience is a fake science that is actually a branch of psychiatry, and thus not the same as neurologists or neurosurgeons. You do realize that psychiatrists are medical doctors (MD) just as much as the 'real' science/medical professions you claim are somehow better? Soooo, the 'fake' science of neuroscience is actually a branch of a real science?

  25. Psychiatry is an even bigger fraud than cognitive neuroscience. Psychiatry has nothing to do with science or medicine and I've done a few videos on the subject. If you type "psychiatry" on You Tube, most of the vids are anti psychiatry.
    Before you ask I have looked at the history of psychiatry in a great deal of depth so I suggest you do the same.

  26. Here is an answer to one of your ridiculous theories. You claim mental illnesses like schizophrenia aren't real because you can't see them in the brain at autopsy. You know why that is? Because schizophrenia is a malfunction of neural communication between different regions of the brain. Kinda hard to measure the electrical activity of neurons when you are dead. Throw anything you want at me, I am a biology major.

  27. Thats just a hypothesis its not a proven fact. If it were then psychiatrists would be able to administer a biological test whether that be a PET scan, EEG etc. At the moment diagnosis is established by an interview not by measuring the electrical activity of neurons. An interview has nothing to do with medicine I'm afraid.

  28. Can you imagine a normal doctor giving someone insulin, chemotherapy, drugs to treat cancer etc on the basis of an interview? If I'm going to have chemotherapy or be put on a life long drug treatment plan then I want a test to prove it especially when neuro-pharmacology for mental illness causes liver, kidney damage and other problems.

  29. You wouldn't interview someone to diagnosis them with cancer (a disease that has zero relevance to behavior) just as much as you wouldn't give someone a PET scan to diagnose them with HIV. Unlike, cancer and other diseases, these diseases actually are reflected in behavior, that is why you can use it as ONE form of measurement Is it perfect? No, but are you going to give every single person who can't concentrate a PET scan or EEG before you give them an ADD medication? No, that is not practical.

  30. You greatly underestimate the complexity of the brain. Diagnosing a mental illness is not like diagnosing diabetes, where you can say, ok, your blood glucose is X, you have diabetes. The brain does not work like that. You can't simply do a test and say, yep overactive D2 receptors, you have schizophrenia or, well, myelin loss between the temporal and frontal lobe. definitely schizophrenia. there are clearly physical abnormalities that can be seen in the brains of schizophrenics

  31. there is zero doubt about that, but there isn't a cookie cutter black and white diagnostic test for it because it is more complicated than that. there very well might be one day, but science isn't there yet, we are limited by the neuroimaging devices we have available at the time.

  32. You: "If it were then psychiatrists would be able to administer a biological test whether that be a PET scan, EEG etc"

    Medical Journal: Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) (Figure 2)
    and other imaging techniques that measure regional
    cerebral blood flow have demonstrated that resting neural
    activity and activation during a variety of cognitive tasks
    are abnormal in several brain areas in schizophrenia

  33. If you want to see more you can search neuroimaging and schizophrenia on google if you want, since you seem to love it so much. There you will find pages and pages of journal articles demonstrating the physical abnormalities found in scanning the brain of schizophrenic patients.

  34. However, I believe the most crushing blow to your point comes from a historical perspective. If your view was correct, advancements in neuroimaging would parallel findings that there isn't as much of a link because the physical brain and mental illness as we thought. Instead we find the opposite, throughout history (and especially in the past 50 years) as neuroimaging advanced and got better, we found more and more the link between the brain and mental illness was undeniable.

  35. Yes you should give a child an EEG or PET scan before giving them medication. Ritalin is a drug just like any other, you talk about it like its no big deal, almost like its candy.
    Did you know Ritalin is open to abuse so if it is crushed and snorted the effects are almost identical to cocaine.

  36. Also why should a child be forced to sit still in class by being drugged with Ritalin? Why don't we change their schooling environment and let them be outdoors running around more often? Today somebody with ADHD is labelled with a disability but if they were born in ancient Rome they might have been a successful powerful worrior and society jealous of their strenght. (not me I'm anti war haha).
    Capitalism may be your Utopian society but its not for all

  37. As far as evidence of physical abnormalities is concerned Dr Joanna Moncrieff says " It is said that people with schizophrenia have different shaped brains- but again the evidence is weak and inconsistent".
    Fred Baughman says that psychiatrists like to show brain scans of people with ADHD which have atrophy proving that ADHD is a real disease. However Baughman points out that the atrophy was probably caused by the medication rather than proof of a real disease.

  38. Mental illness is not a brain disease and untill there is PROOF (not evidence as big pharma is a business) , I don't think mental illness should be treated with neuro-pharmacology.

  39. You're cherry picking research to support your belief.
    In science there's suppose to be a hypothesis, then research and then a conclusion. With psychiatry they've jumped the gun, they've already started to treat people with neuro-pharmacology on a hypothesis however if they did it properly nobody would be on any psychiatric drug because the research to justify this approach just isn't there.

  40. That sounds like something out of a PR campaign for neuroscience I'm afraid, don't be fooled. I typed "mental illness brain imaging" in google and all I see is things like
    Brain scans alone cannot be used to diagnose a mental disorder, such as autism, anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder.
    However, at this time relying on brain scans alone cannot diagnose a mental illness or tell you your risk of getting a mental illness in the future.

  41. Do you accept that its possible there will never be a cure for mental illness with neuro-pharmacology because mental illness was never a brain disease in the first place?

    Most of the so called illnesses in the DSM are voted into existence by the American Psychiatric Association, none are discovered in the laboratory. Infact most mental illnesses are diagnosed through an interview.

    Do you accept that its possible mental illness is not a brain disease?

  42. You do realize that a PET scan for example can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $4,000. We are going to waste the time of medical professionals and spend hundreds of millions of dollars if not billion to per scribe a medical for a MILD mental problem. Would having to wait months for a test, spend thousands of dollars of your money, put a team of medical professionals together to run the test and interpret the results because you can be prescribed a cold medication make any sense? No of course not

  43. Wow, a drug can be abused? Really I didn't know that. Seriously, you are going to talk to me about the affects of ADD medication? I have done research specifically on ADD medications. I know more about ADD medication than you will ever know, unlike you, I actually have formal training in biology and specifically in pharmacology. How many upper year pharmacology classes have you taken?

  44. For your first point, I will once again use a journal article, there are plenty more:

    "There is now compelling evidence from neuroimaging studies that schizophrenia is a brain disease. Abnormalities, albeit subtle in magnitude and variable in extent across studies, are now reported in virtually every brain region; global deficits, lateral ventricular enlargement, and frontotemporal deficits are the most pronounced."

  45. Really? So all the people who have visibly abnormal brain scans BEFORE they took any medication must have been secretly taking it before right? I went out of my way to pick one out of a neurology journal so you couldn't claim it was some how tainted by the "fake" science of psychiatry

    "The subject group comprised 13 boys with ADHD. 11 ADHD
    subjects were stimulant naive and a further two ADHD
    subjects received no stimulant medication for at least
    48 h prior to the MRI scanning. "

  46. You must also doubt gravity. There is technically no scientific "PROOF" it exists. You have to by your model. It would be extremely hypocritical to dismiss one because there is no proof but accept another when there is no conclusive evidence.

  47. Cherry Picking? Over 90% of the literature backs me up. You cannot deny you are in the minority in regards to the opinion of medical professions on the topic (that includes non-psychiatrist MDs as well).

    Take a sample of 100 articles and see who is cherry picking.

  48. Your right. My years of university training in science must have been overpowered by something I read in the first result that I typed into google just like you. You realize I read that article as well right? Try looking a bit deeper next time.

    It is also funny that you say in your video that the NIH just wants to promote mental illness/pharmaceutical drugs for capitalistic motives, yet cite them in an attempt to demonstrate a non-biological basis for mental illness.

  49. you do realize that when doctors/medical professions say something like well the evidence suggests there are abnormalities but they aren't consistent,, etc that doesn't support your side, that supports my side. I accept that there are variations in abnormalities, that is expected, the brain is not like other organs. The fact that it is physically wired by individual experience means there are going to be differences. Your side is, there is zero biological basis. Show me that.

  50. Your argument is flawed from the very start. Your departing from the idea that ADHD is real disease and it simply isn’t. To be a real disease the entity has to be measured or approached in a scientific manner. So even if a PET scan costs four thousand dollars it should be done.
    The reason the PET scan isn’t given isn’t because it costs too much but because a test of the kind doesn’t exist.

  51. I'm not saying what we call "mental illness" doesn't exist,
    I'm saying these collection of symptoms shouldn't be called an "illness". By calling it an illness people then try to medicate it like a biological illness. As I explain in other video's, mental illness is just people reacting to impossible social situations and things going on in their personal lives.

  52. So if somebody is overworked and bullied their brain chemicals will probably change but not because of "a disease" but because they were bullied etc. So I would fix the problem by looking at their situation and circumstances where as the psychiatrist would label you with an illness, which is what I'm trying to explain.
    Its a form of social control.

  53. Also the whole point I'm making about ADHD not being a real disease is because its a label being used to control kids. Why should kids have to sit still in class for long periods of time if they don't want to? Compulsory education was only established in the UK during the reign of queen Victoria.
    Before that if you were hyper it was probably a good thing so you could plough the land.

  54. I would have no problem with research in brain and behaviour if it were done differently. I don't think we're going to improve the suffering of mental illness with more brain research as we (anti psychiatry) don't think mental illness is a real brain disease. To be a real disease there has to be a biological test or pathology.

    .

  55. Neuroscience or Cognitive Neuroscience is not a fake/pseudoscience. First of all, you misunderstand the term 'science' (look up the definition).

    Second, Cognitive Neuroscience is not a branch of psychiatry, but psychology.

    Indeed it is true that it hasn't been able to find the biological factors causing mental ilnesses, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    Thirdly, cognitive neuroscience is interesting in the brain's plasticity, and instead of conducting somatic interventions,

  56. it is also possible to conduct behavioral interventions.

    For instance, is has been showed that exercise increases the levels of BDNF in our brains which inhibits neural apostasy and therefore has helped many patients regaining normal brain functions after a stroke/lesion.

    You are adressing a problem, not relevant to neuroscience, but psychiatry. There are, indeed, problems with diagnosing people, but the assessments of mental illnesses and treatments have improved significantly.

  57. And no one blames the brain instead of the situation. It is interplay between the brain and the situation/environment that cognitive neuroscience is interested in.

    I think you are very deluded. You have no idea what you are talking about. I do understand the problems you adress, but they are much more relevant to psychiatry than to neuroscience or cognitive neuroscience.

    The study of the biological substrates underlying cognition is clearly an important aspect to understand.

  58. Try typing "psychiatry neuroscience" on google and you'll see they are very much engaged. If you haven't been able to find biological factors causing mental illness then you shouldn’t be treating people with neuro pharmacology which addresses a biological cause.

  59. I did say in the video I have no problem with neurology or the treatment of stroke, brain tumour etc. In fact I would have no problem with neuroscience if it were only interested in real disease like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
    You say the assessment of mental illness and treatments have improved significantly but we anti psychiatry don’t believe these illnesses are real. They are labels for people who don’t conform to society and neuro pharmacology is being used to drug people not to cure.

  60. I did say in the video I have no problem with neurology or the treatment of stroke, brain tumour etc. In fact I would have no problem with neuroscience if it were only interested in real disease like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.
    You say the assessment of mental illness and treatments have improved significantly but we anti psychiatry don’t believe these illnesses are real. They are labels for people who don’t conform to society and neuro pharmacology is being used to drug people not to cure.

  61. Wauv, you really are deluded!

    I think that your problem is that you use the terms neuroscience and psychiatry interchangeably. Neuroscience is the study of the nervous system and cognitive neuroscience is the study of the biological substrates underlying cognition.

    You are talking about Psychiatry. But what you are suggesting? Shoud we stop diagnosing psychotic individuals because we so far have been unable to prove all the biological factors? No, of course not. We treat them.

  62. I also watched you 'anti-psychology' video and I – as a psychology student with focus on cognitive neuroscience – can assure you that you are deluded. You have lost your grip with reality. You think that both psychology, psychiatry and cognitive neuroscience have a hidden agenda. You absolutely wrong.

  63. You just don't seem to get it.
    Nobody is being treated, they are being drugged in order to stop their behaviour. Your question should be "should we stop drugging them?".
    You’re just accepting the status quo. It’s a bit like someone asking “should we stop exorcism when society was governed by the church”. I would say before you administer an exorcism prove to me that a demon exists.

  64. Therefore prove to me that someone has a chemical imbalance before you administer the drugs. If you can’t then don’t drug anyone and let the police lock them up if they commit a crime.

  65. In this video I try to explain that there is no conspiracy or hidden agenda its just they believe in their pseudoscience.
    I think psychiatrists do want to help their patients but people do bad things thinking they are doing good. It’s a bit like religion. If you tell someone to kill they would say “no its bad” but if you tell them to do it in God’s name they do it without question as seen in Joshua 6:20-27.

  66. I came here for help on the question, "Does neuroscience provide true answers?" not how neuroscience is USED. The science of ballistics is chiefly USED for military purposes. That has nothing to do with whether it is TRUE or whether it is a science. It predicts trajectories with near perfect accuracy, so there's the answer to THAT question. Your discussion has nothing to do with whether neuroscience is TRUE, but only with how it's used.

  67. Thanks for the comment, what do you mean by "does neuroscience provide true answers?" can you give an example?
    I think neuroscience in relation to real disease like Alzheimers, Parkinsons, brain tumour etc is true however I don't think it can be used to answer social questions.

  68. I'm at a loss. You say it works for Alzheimers, Parkinsons, brain tumour etc. So how can it be a fake science? To answer your question, a friend who claims to be an utterly rigorous empiricist, nevertheless claims neuroscience has completely PROVED there is no free will. Sounded like an extravagant claim to me. I wanted to get some idea of whether he had a point.

  69. The point I make at the beginning of the vid is that cognitive neuroscience has amalgamated real disease like stroke, tumour, parkinson’s etc with fake diseases like psychiatric ones.
    We "anti psychiatry" think that schizophrenia, ADHD, depression, Bipolar etc are all fake diseases which I explain better in my video called "psychiatry, how they make a diagnosis." if you're interested.

  70. See your question about neuroscience and free will falls in to the realm of philosophy not medicine.
    I typed "neuroscience free will" on google and it wasn't long before I found "neuroscience research regarding free will field remains highly controversial and there is no consensus among researchers about the significance of findings, their meaning, or what conclusions may be drawn".

  71. I'm not a scientologist, I don't like any religion. I am a former psychiatric patient but I'm not delusional. Isn't it better that people like me who have managed to get better come forward and share our ideas?

  72. I believe that people like you should share your ideas, I truly do. But when you come out and say that cognitive neuroscience is a fake science, you are clearly showing you have no clue what a science is, you haven't though about the definition of science for just one second. Its hard to take your video seriously because you are saying that a science is a fake science because it cannot explain something perfectly… that's what SCIENCE IS DUDE…hard to take you seriously… sorry.

  73. I know what science is, just because something calls its self or claims to be scientific doesn’t automatically make it so. If you look up on YouTube “Nita Farahany on neuroscience and law” she explains how neuroscience is being used by the military and in the court room so its intertwined with social and moral issues.

  74. An example would be a video on youtube called "President Peres: Brain research" where the israeli head of state advocates for more brain research because people need to learn how to control themselves.
    However if you watch the rest of his speech highlights on youtube he says "Iran must be stopped, if we are forced to fight we must prevail".
    How can this be SCIENCE when he wants the public to learn self control but he advocates for war?

  75. Some people use their knowledge in chemistry to make bombs and drugs… does that make chemistry a fake science??… some bad apples use knowledge as the wrong propaganda, happens in every field of knowledge. That doesn't make them fake. or does it?

  76. and besides, whats wrong with understanding the biological basis of human psychological processes?… don't you want your doctors to know how your brain makes your memory work? or your sleep? or your learning ability? basic emotions? ect… the social an moral issues are the points where science and philosophy intertwine (being philosophy the mother of all sciences by the way). I don't see anything fake in using logic and reason to understand the brain as the creator of the mind.

  77. That’s a very good point but I still can’t accept it as being a science.
    Learning ability, emotions, behaviour are more to do with social and environmental issues than with “the brain”.
    I think its dangerous to accept that all these emotions are to do with “the brain” as nobody will bother to try to improve their situation. Government likes to promote this idea because anybody who doesn’t fit in will just be looked at as having something wrong in their neurons.

  78. Learning ability, emotions, behavior are more to do with social and environmental issues than with “the brain”.
    I believe that premise is wrong…What is right is that it has to do do more with the interaction between the brain and society and environment.., than just the brain alone. Why do you try to separate them? they are inseparable, they are a continuation, they both interact. The brain creates society, society affects the brain.
    We just differ in what we know and believe about the brain.

  79. This kind of logic leads to exploitation. So what would you say about the 300 Chinese workers who work for Foxconn and took to a factory roof and threatened bosses with mass suicide over a dispute concerning pay and working conditions? Have they got something wrong with their brains if they want to commit suicide?

  80. No. Ignorance and power abuse lead to exploitation. This kind of "logic" is just recognizing that the brain is the biological basis for the mind. Its hard to understand, but its true.
    An second of all… that example man?…really? come on, you can do better than that.
    No one is saying that cognitive neuroscience has an answer to everything in the world. That´s the reason its a science, it offers information…which sometimes, I admit, it is used in the wrong way. But it is a tool.

  81. I don’t think you get what I’m trying to say.
    In a capitalist country a business man has a “good brian” which we can observe and learn form. In a communist country a business man has a “bad brain” which should be cured. In this country neuro marketing is “good” however is a communist country it would be considered “bad”. Its being used in the military to find better recruits which is considered good but if you’re a pacifist its considered bad.

  82. I don’t think it’s a “science” which is being used but a tool to help justify whatever social policy someone with power wants to implement. You think it’s a science, I think its just interpreting data to push through or promote a certain idea giving it the appearance of having more credibility.

  83. i said "which sometimes, I admit, it is used in the wrong way. But it is a tool"… you are just generalizing. I apreciate the talk. Im not gonna answer anymore.

  84. Here I'm talking more about neuroscience than psychology but if you watch my vid called "psychiatry, how they make a diagnosis" I explain why the whole drug approach is flaud. Also I did a video about big pharma and psychiatry and I explain a brief history of how it all started.

  85. I have to disagree with you on this one. I will start by saying that I am currently a neuroscience student. I think you have a very skewed concept of what neuroscience is. It, in simple terms, is the science of the brain (anatomy, pharmacology, chemistry etc.) your argument never once makes any rational points as to why it is not a science. You simply state that because people have used it for their own purpose it isn't valid. In a way it is a more specialized version of biology with one focus.

  86. My overall considered judgement is…

    • that the independent evidence for somatic causes as the only, or even. the main non-hereditary factor in schizophrenia is not sufficient.

    • that the many findings of MRI and fMRI changes in schizophrenia does not make any difference with respect to this issue.

    phil.gu.se/posters/schiz_Leiden.pdf

  87. thanks for the comment, I don’t think it’s a “science” which is being used but a "tool" to help justify whatever social policy someone with power wants to implement. You think it’s a science, I think its just interpreting data to push through or promote a certain idea giving it the appearance of having more credibility.
    I'm talking about cognitive neuroscience not neuroscience involved in real disease like Parkinson's and Alzheimers etc.

  88. What would you think if an islamic country published a story in a newspaper with the title "neuroscience research shows people who pray to Allah five times a day are happier than those who don't". The research involved 100 participants and those who prayed had higher levels of serotonin.

  89. Pablo Gomez –  Hi If you type on google "behavioural neuroscience university of michigan" then try university of pennsylvania, then university of colorado.  Maybe look up 10 different universities that do behavioral neuroscience and you'll see that psychology and psychiatry are very much involved in the research.

  90. +UnlearnEverything   You’re just being ridiculous.  You can say that to anyone that disagrees with you.  It reminds me a bit of the interview I saw with Mathew Perry (from friends ) on Newsnight where he was trying to explain that addiction was a real disease with lots of science to prove it but when challenged all he could do was pass ridicule.   You can watch it on YouTube if you like.

  91. Modern neuroscience is a misdirected effort to explain mind in terms of brain functions. The claims and conclusions of the diverse academics and scientists who engage in this enterprise undermine the concepts of moral agency and personal responsibility.

    Szasz shows that the cognitive function of speech is to enable us to talk not only to others but to ourselves (in short, to be our own interlocutor), and that the view that mind is brain–embraced by both the scientific community and the popular press–is not an empirical finding but a rhetorical ruse concealing humanity's unceasing struggle to control persons by controlling the vocabulary. The discourse of brain-mind, unlike the discourse of man as moral agent, protects people from the dilemmas intrinsic to holding themselves responsible for their own actions and holding others responsible for theirs. (Excerpt from a book reivew of Thomas Szasz's book: The Meaning of Mind: Language, Morality, and Neuroscience.)

  92. Though there are a number of comments already which detail the issues with this video, I feel that the primary issues at hand are not being directly addressed. I am going to go through the major one I noticed.

    The question of whether cognitive neuroscience is a legitimate science is conflated with two questions completely separate from the one at hand: should mental illness be considered as a biological disorder, and are the actions of the scientists in the best interest of society at large. While these are important questions to address, I'm afraid that neither will allow you to demarcate cognitive science from real sciences. To put it another way, neither question will tell you where respectable neurological knowledge ends, and pseudo-science begins.

    The reason it seems you don't run into this problem in your video is that you do not properly define the boundaries of each field. Since you fail to define your terms I will do so here:
    (Neuroscience = the study of processes relating to the nervous system and its constituent cells)
    (Neurology = the medical application of knowledge gained from Neuroscience)
    (Cognitive Neuroscience = the study of the nervous system as it applies to cognition, i.e. the production of perceptions, opinions, languages, experiences, memories, etc.)
    (Psychiatry = the attempt to understand and treat mental disorders through a biological mechanism)

    These definitions should make it clear that each of these categories will demonstrate some overlap. Knowledge developed through neuroscience will drive new methods in neurology. It would not have been possible for neurologists to develop the deep brain stimulation techniques which mitigate movement loss from Parkinson's if neuroscientists hadn't explored the basal ganglia in rats. Without the cognitive neuroscience developed by investigating lesion patients like H.M. there would not be a neurological understanding of anterograde amnesia. Likewise, if the cognitive neuroscience investigation of split brain patients were reclassified as invalid pseudoscience then there would be no reason to continue our neurological practice of abstaining from cutting the corpus callosum. If you claim that All cognitive neuroscience is pseudoscience then you imply that there is no link between our neural states and our higher order functions. To say this will also invalidate a large portion of neurology.

    While there is certainly overlap between cognitive neuroscience and psychiatry, your argument seems to rely on the assumption that 'cognitive science' = psychiatry. While the reality of funding and market pressures will instigate a number of cognitive neuroscience studies aimed at supporting psychiatry this no more invalidates the science than the presence of oil companies invalidates the practice of chemical engineering. Your argument seems to be as follows: 1) 'If psychiatry is psuedoscience' then cognitive science is 'psuedoscience' 2) psychiatry is psuedoscience; C) Therefore, cognitive science is 'psuedoscience.' Though I'm doubtful that #2 is actually true, I am very confident that #1 is incorrect and moreover, see no explicit evidence to the contrary presented in your video.

  93. +Nicholas Buser

    Hello, thanks for the comment and for taking an interest. I don't think all cognitive neuroscience is fake but as I pointed out at the start of the video the lines between real neurology and psychiatry have been amalgamated to a point where people find it difficult to distinguish "real" from "pseudo" medicine.
    I can tell you exactly where "respectable neuroscience" ends and begins and that's with a "biological test" which is standard procedure for real medicine. Lets use the example you picked, "Parkinson's Disease". This is a real disease caused by a loss of neurons in the substantia nigra which is found in the basal ganglia of the brain. It would be possible to confirm the diagnosis with a needle biopsy in the living person but this is far to dangerous and is confirmed at autopsy under the microscope. If somebody wants to do neuroscience research based on Parkinson's then good on them, I don't have any problems.
    However psychiatry has hijacked neuroscience to justify the biological model of psychiatry which is a "fake" science. This is simply because there is no biological test. To be a real disease there has to be a biological test or pathology. If someone has schizophrenia, ADHD, conduct disorder, depression etc there is no biological test so it would be insane to treat them with neuro-pharmacology. A real disease like AIDS, Cancer, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Leukaemia, Diabetes etc all have a medical test or are confirmed at autopsy.

    Most of the so called illnesses in the DSM are voted into existence by the American Psychiatric Association, none are discovered in the laboratory. In fact most mental illnesses are diagnosed through an interview. Can you imagine a normal doctor giving someone insulin, chemotherapy, drugs to treat cancer etc on the basis of an interview? If I'm going to have chemotherapy or be put on a life long drug treatment plan then I want a test to prove it especially when neuro-pharmacology for mental illness causes liver, kidney damage and other problems.

    I've also done other videos explaining why psychiatry is a fraud, thank you

  94. Your opinion is yours to have, it's just sad that you are able to spread your anti factual opinions on a large scale. Luckily for the rest of us, the opinions you have on this subject, and the subject of psychiatry, doesn't affect the truth.

  95. I agree with this video 100 percent, my life was ruined. I’m not going to blame Psychologist and Psychiatrist, because it was my choice to believe their diagnosis however I would like to say I am finally off Benzodiazepines which I took for ten years along with many different SSRI’s
    I was diagnosed three different times, First/ Anxiety and Depression
    Second /Bipolar
    Third / Depersonalization Derealization Disorder.
    I was panicking and overwhelmed because of a lot of things that happened in my life. They never listened, if they would have they would have understood my feelings were in exact accordance for my pain.

    I have been off meds for three years, I feel fine other than still haven’t been able to get this story out because people do not believe Abuse it seems or Trauma.

    Thank you so much for sharing your video

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *