Criticizing Lieberman’s Position Essays Example

The neuroscience, especially neuroscience concerning cognitive social networking of the human brain (Lieberman 2013) is a relatively new field of study. Lieberman’s book ‘Social: Why Our Brains are Wired to Connect’ is considered a gem in this field of study by those who take neuroscience and the neuroscientists as the new-world sages and saviors. The critics, however, are very skeptical of the very idea of joining science of the nerves with the discipline of psychology.
The most common criticism of neuroscience, especially in the light of Lieberman’s book is that it relies too much on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The critics believe that the technology and with it the practice of the neuroscientists is in the stage of infancy to give much credence to the findings of these scientists specifically concerning the well-defined discipline of psychology. Most of the leading figures of this new science are in their 20s and30s. To the critic’s neuroscience concerning social cognitive networking of the brain is a temporary fashion, fad or vogue and nothing more besides. Further, the critics believe that this trend is harmful and should not be taken lightly as it touches the sensitive fields like law (O’Leary, para. 1).
A prominent critic condemns the venturing the venturing of neuroscientists into realms that were previously the exclusive concern of the humanities. According to him it is mind numbing to even think of such terms and notions neuro-jurisprudence, neuro-aesthetics and neuro-art. He is especially angry at the philosophers who are turning to the experimental philosophy, something baffling because the philosophers by habit are taught to be skeptical of such like premises. To him neuroscience of the kind being touted by Lieberman and his colleagues is nonsensical and he refers to it as ‘Neurotrash’ (Tallis para. 1-3).
Still other critics are of the confirmed view that Lieberman and other neuroscientists are only considering one aspect of the very dynamic mechanism of the brain. They are surprised about the hype the neuroscientists have created on so little and if scrutinized correctly flawed findings in their labs (Oosterwijik 1).
According to Donna Siebenthaler of the Presbyterian School, though Lieberman’s book is a good and informative read it has a very significant flaw. She believes that it would have been much better if Lieberman had discussed in detail his ideas concerning social cognitive network as regards the educational and business sectors and the over-all activities of our daily existence than his pre-occupation with the fMRI lab studies (Siebenthaler 2).
Another prominent critic of neuroscience and neuroscientists writes that Lieberman has compartmentalized and categorized the human brain into bits and pieces which in reality is not the case. His objection is that Lieberman gives too much credence to fMRI than is needed (Henig para.7).
In conclusion, the opposition to neuroscience and its limited approach towards the human brain is coming under negative scrutiny on a daily basis now. Some neuroscientists themselves are questioning the validity of their findings because they believe that “neuroscience has very little to say about the individual person or even bits of consciousness (Tallis para. 13).

Works Cited

Henig, Robin M. "Linked In ‘Social,’ by Matthew D. Lieberman - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. The New York Times, 1 Nov. 2013. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.
Lieberman, Matthew D. Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2013. Print.
O'Leary, Denyse. "MercatorNet: Brain Scans and Neurotrash." MercatorNet: Promoting Human Dignity. New Media Foundation 2015, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.
Oosterwijk, Suzanne. "Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. | Book Review."In-Mind. The Inquisitive Mind, 27 Mar. 2014. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.
Siebenthaler, Donna. "Book Review @social: Why Our Brains are Wired to Connect."SAIS. Trinity Presbyterian School, Jan. 2014. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.
Tallis, Raymond. "Neurotrash." New Humanist. The Rationalist Association, 10 Nov. 2009. Web. 3 Feb. 2015.