Reading for Thursday

Although the monster part of the book is pretty darn cool, as a science nerd, I was interested by the discussion brought up in chapter four. I find it interesting that science people have been having the same argument for 500 years. The concern about how information can be taken without it being subjective, and therefore useless to anyone else, is a difficult subject. This is especially true in writings and discussions about studying the brain. Indeed, self report and philosophizing about one's thoughts was once considered the way to study the world around us, while observing experiences was looked down upon. Then, as information gathered by observation began to play a practical role in maintaining health, people began to change their attitudes. The concern still plays out today when trying to figure out how we can study the brain. The brain, by nature, is changed when it studies itself, and self report is notoriously error-filled. However, in some instances, it can still tell us quite a bit about the brain through that process, as well as acting as the only means for gathering information as it stands. This debate hasn't changed very much through time, meaning that despite the surroundings changing, the concerns and implications of what either method can do are still important today. That leads me to an important question: Outside of the already discussed debate of practicality vs. intellectual curiosity, what other dichotomous debates do you see in this book so far?