<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Interesting<div><br></div><div>With respect to the cortical column discussion we didn’t yet have (whether they exist or not), there were actually two papers published by Vernon Mountcastle in the late 1950s in which the cortical column idea was introduced.</div><div><br></div><div>The first included mostly the data, the second mostly the idea.</div><div><br></div><div>I once plotted literature citations for the two papers. For the first 10 years, the data paper was cited much more than the theory paper. However, 15 year out they crossed and now the data paper is almost never sited.</div><div><br></div><div>So, as mentioned earlier with Marr and Albus, perhaps it is a kind of theory envy in neuroscience, but it is not at all unusual in neuroscience to have exactly the opposite be the case, that the data is forgotten and the theory persist.</div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps all this is leading to an interesting article (or perhaps book with a series of essays) on how physics and biology are similar and different. Anyone interested?</div><div><br></div><div>As some of you probably know, Thomas Kuhn explicitly excluded biology in his analysis (as a physicist, obviously, he knew that field better). I have often her biologists say that his analysis does not apply to biology at which point I tell him that it does, he just didn’t talk very much about pre-parigmatic science.</div><div><br></div><div>However, I believe that the conversation we have been having about the epistemology of physics and biology might be of considerable more general interest. I know that this has been commented on by others before (Richard F for example), but I don’t know of any volume of essays on the subject.</div><div><br></div><div>Could be interesting</div><div><br></div><div>Jim</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Jan 28, 2014, at 10:30 AM, Carson Chow <<a href="mailto:ccchow@pitt.edu">ccchow@pitt.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Hi Brad,<br>
<br>
Philip Anderson, Nobel Prize in Physics, once wrote that theory
and experimental results should never be in the same paper. His
reason was for the protection of the experiment because if the
theory turns out wrong (as is often the case) then people often
forget about the data. <br>
<br>
Carson<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/28/14 8:25 AM, Brad Wyble wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAHXqt=4rqrerWaucufmb5Wxtho9h_wrnEYQtqr3kQW1Zro_cyQ@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Thanks Randal, that's a great suggestion. I'll ask
my colleagues in physics for their perspective as well.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Brad</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:54 PM,
Randal Koene <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:randal.a.koene@gmail.com" target="_blank">randal.a.koene@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Hi
Brad,</div>
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">This
reminds me of theoretical physics, where proposed models
are expounded in papers, often without the ability to
immediately carry out empirical tests of all the
predictions. Subsequently, experiments are often
designed to compare and contrast different models.</span>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
Perhaps a way to advance this is indeed to make the
analogy with physics?</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Cheers,</div>
<div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Randal</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Dr. Randal A. Koene</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Randal.A.Koene@gmail.com" target="_blank">Randal.A.Koene@gmail.com</a> - <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Randal.A.Koene@carboncopies.org" target="_blank">Randal.A.Koene@carboncopies.org</a></div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://randalkoene.com/" target="_blank">http://randalkoene.com</a> -
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://carboncopies.org/" target="_blank">http://carboncopies.org</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 8:29
PM, Brad Wyble <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:bwyble@gmail.com" target="_blank">bwyble@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Thank you Mark, I hadn't seen this
paper. She includes this other point that
should have been in my list:
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>"From a practical point of view, as noted
the time required to build </div>
<div>and analyze a computational model is
quite substantial and validation may </div>
<div>require teams. To delay model
presentation until validation has occurred </div>
<div>retards the development of the scientific
field. " ----Carley (1999)</div>
</div>
<div> </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And here is a citation for this paper.</div>
<div>Carley, Kathleen M., 1999. Validating
Computational Models. CASOS Working Paper, CMU<span><font color="#888888"><br>
</font></span></div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Brad</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</font></span></div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 27,
2014 at 9:48 PM, Mark Orr <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:mo2259@columbia.edu" target="_blank">mo2259@columbia.edu</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">Brad,
<div>Kathleen Carley, at CMU, has a
paper on this idea (from the 1990s),
suggesting the same practice. See <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/EmpValid.Carley.pdf" target="_blank">http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/EmpValid.Carley.pdf</a></div>
<span><font color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mark</div>
</font></span>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Jan 27, 2014, at 9:39
PM, Brad Wyble wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
Dear connectionists,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I wanted to get some
feedback regarding some
recent ideas concerning
the publication of
models because I think
that our current
practices are slowing
down the progress of
theory. At present, at
least in many psychology
journals, it is often
expected that a
computational modelling
paper includes
experimental evidence in
favor of a small
handful of its own
predictions. While I am
certainly in favor of
model testing, I have
come to the suspicion
that the practice of
including empirical
validation within the
same paper as the
initial model is
problematic for several
reasons:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>It encourages the
creation only of
predictions that are
easy to test with the
techniques available
to the modeller.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It strongly
encourages a practice of
running an experiment,
designing a model to fit
those results, and then
claiming this as a bona
fide prediction. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It encourages a
practice of running a
battery of experiments
and reporting only those
that match the model's
output. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It encourages the
creation of predictions
which cannot fail, and
are therefore less
informative</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It encourages a
mindset that a model is
a failure if all of its
predictions are not
validated, when in fact
we actually learn more
from a failed prediction
than a successful one.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
It makes it easier for
experimentalists to
ignore models, since
such modelling papers
are "self contained". </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I was thinking that,
instead of the current
practice, it should be
permissible and even
encouraged that a
modelling paper should
not include empirical
validation, but instead
include a broader array
of predictions. Thus
instead of 3
successfully tested
predictions from the
PI's own lab, a model
might include 10
untested predictions for
a variety of different
experimental techniques.
This practice will, I
suspect, lead to the
development of bolder
theories, stronger
tests, and most
importantly, tighter
ties between empiricists
and theoreticians. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am certainly not
advocating that
modellers shouldn't test
their own models, but
rather that it should be
permissible to publish a
model without testing it
first. The testing paper
could come later. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I also realize that
this shift in
publication expectations
wouldn't prevent the
problems described
above, but it would at
least not reward them. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I also think that
modellers should make a
concerted effort to
target empirical
journals to increase the
visibility of models.
This effort should
coincide with a shift in
writing style to make
such models more
accessible to non
modellers.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>What do people think
of this? If there is
broad agreement, what
would be the best way to
communicate this desire
to journal editors?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Any advice welcome!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
-Brad<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">Brad
Wyble<br>
Assistant Professor<br>
Psychology Department<br>
Penn State University
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://wyblelab.com/" target="_blank">http://wyblelab.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">Brad Wyble<br>
Assistant Professor<br>
Psychology Department<br>
Penn State University
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://wyblelab.com/" target="_blank">http://wyblelab.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">Brad Wyble<br>
Assistant Professor<br>
Psychology Department<br>
Penn State University
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://wyblelab.com/" target="_blank">http://wyblelab.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br><div apple-content-edited="true">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(149, 0, 4);">Dr. James M. Bower Ph.D.</span><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Professor of Computational Neurobiology</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: rgb(66, 0, 168);">Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">15355 Lambda Drive</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">University of Texas Health Science Center </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">San Antonio, Texas 78245</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Phone: 210 382 0553</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Email: <a href="mailto:bower@uthscsa.edu">bower@uthscsa.edu</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">Web: <a href="http://www.bower-lab.org">http://www.bower-lab.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">twitter: superid101<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">linkedin: Jim Bower<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: rgb(177, 89, 19);">CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: rgb(177, 89, 19);">The contents of this email and any attachments to it may be privileged or contain privileged and confidential information. This information is only for the viewing or use of the intended recipient. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of, or the taking of any action in reliance upon, any of the information contained in this e-mail, or<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: rgb(177, 89, 19);">any of the attachments to this e-mail, is strictly prohibited and that this e-mail and all of the attachments to this e-mail, if any, must be<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; color: rgb(177, 89, 19);">immediately returned to the sender or destroyed and, in either case, this e-mail and all attachments to this e-mail must be immediately deleted from your computer without making any copies hereof and any and all hard copies made must be destroyed. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by e-mail immediately.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></p></div>
</div>
<br></div></body></html>