I often wonder how some academics are so confident in their scientific opinion, and whether I should have stronger opinions on specific theories. Then I realise I do have strong opinions on how little we actually know about the brain and that we should be less theoretically dogmatic.
Comments
..tend to assume they consider themselves playing role of strong advocate
Don't think that's true in practice; esp if we see sci as adversarial process..
practically, too: flat-earther scoring pnas papers on it then changing mind wd be lauded, pop with reviewers /symposia
(i have never managed it.. but it looks that way from afar!)
[*strong as in becoming somehow "invested" in it]
The neuron doctrine is wrong though
And expressing them (respectfully) is, imho, a net benefit for science!