Talk:Neuroheuristics

Philosophy: Science / Mind Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science
	Philosophy of mind

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Citations

Hi, I'm checking citations. I've removed/changed some, and am putting my reasoning here:

Occasionally, multiple citations were stored in one. I separated those out.
^[1] - not exactly a reliable source, and it appears to have been used exclusively to prove that the word neuroheuristic is real. That's not necessary, because other citations in the article should be discussing the topic. [removed completely]
^[2] - I read this page, it mentions an article called Vers un nouveau paradigme en neurosciences by Alessandro Villa (a neuroscientist). An english version of that article's abstract is at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11094540/. Regardless, I can't find the full article, in english or french. While it seems implausible that it demonstrates the point in the article, I can't say it doesn't. Also, the journal it was published in appears to not have been particularly good at the time. [Replaced citation with actual article. Added "verification needed" template.]
^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] - These are great evidence that a worm's brain was mapped, but they don't show that this achievement is at all relevant to neuroheuristics (I will quickly note that I didn't look at the articles particularly closely, so I may be wrong). Unless there is an article that ties this worm to neuroheuristics, the associated statement is original research and should be removed. [Removed citations, sentence remained. I may remove the sentence later.]
^[7]^[8] - I couldn't actually read the first and the writing of the second was a bit too... academic... for me, but I surmised that they're generally about what the blackbox theory is. Same with the last, unless I'm wrong and one of these does actually discuss it in the context its presented in within the statement, or a different reliable source does, then this would be original research, and ultimately should be removed. Either way, these articles are about black box, not about black box within the context of the statement. [Removed citations.]
^[9] - as far as I can tell, this is an example of a body of work that typifies the previous sentence. Again, could be wrong, because it is not at all clear. An example is not a good citation for WP. [Removed citation.]
I didn't check the group of citations on the statement close to the end, so if someone else could then that'd be great.

I will also just note that most citations are related to Alessandro Villa. Assuming there are reliable sources unrelated to him, it would be great to have more variety.

Obviously, absolutely fine to undo any of my changes if you think I'm wrong, but please explain why here. It'll help anyone else checking references to figure out why it is there. --Xurizuri (talk) 06:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC) // edited to add <ref>06:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After simplifying the sentence, I've added the worm citations back in. They apparently do fit when the prose is less purple. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Neuro Heuristic paradigm". Neuroheuristic Research Group.
^ "Vers un nouveau paradigme en neurosciences" (PDF). Archives cantonales vaudoises, document #PP 525/806, page 108.
^ "A database featuring behavioral and structural anatomy of Caenorhabditis elegans".
^ "Specification of the nervous system of C. elegans".
^ White, J.G.; Southgate, E.; Thomson, J.N.; Brenner, S. (1986). "The Structure of the Nervous System of the Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 314 (1165): 1–340. doi:10.1098/rstb.1986.0056. PMID 22462104.
^ Jabr, Ferris. "The Connectome Debate: Is Mapping the Mind of a Worm Worth It?". Scientific American.
^ Botterill, George; Carruthers, Peter (1999). The Philosophy of Psychology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521559157.
^ Von Hilgers, Philipp (2011). "The History of the Black Box: The Clash of a Thing and its Concept". Cultural Politics. 7 (1): 41–58. doi:10.2752/175174311X12861940861707.
^ Burke, Robert E. (2007). "Sir Charles Sherrington's the integrative action of the nervous system: a centenary appreciation". Brain. 130 (4): 887–894. doi:10.1093/brain/awm022. PMID 17438014.

[1] "The Neuro Heuristic paradigm". Neuroheuristic Research Group.

[2] "Vers un nouveau paradigme en neurosciences" (PDF). Archives cantonales vaudoises, document #PP 525/806, page 108.

[3] "A database featuring behavioral and structural anatomy of Caenorhabditis elegans".

[4] "Specification of the nervous system of C. elegans".

[5] White, J.G.; Southgate, E.; Thomson, J.N.; Brenner, S. (1986). "The Structure of the Nervous System of the Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 314 (1165): 1–340. doi:10.1098/rstb.1986.0056. PMID 22462104.

[6] Jabr, Ferris. "The Connectome Debate: Is Mapping the Mind of a Worm Worth It?". Scientific American.

[7] Botterill, George; Carruthers, Peter (1999). The Philosophy of Psychology. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521559157.

[8] Von Hilgers, Philipp (2011). "The History of the Black Box: The Clash of a Thing and its Concept". Cultural Politics. 7 (1): 41–58. doi:10.2752/175174311X12861940861707.

[9] Burke, Robert E. (2007). "Sir Charles Sherrington's the integrative action of the nervous system: a centenary appreciation". Brain. 130 (4): 887–894. doi:10.1093/brain/awm022. PMID 17438014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]