Romain Brette
@romainbrette.bsky.social
510 followers 110 following 130 posts
Looking at protists with the eyes of a theoretical neuroscientist. Looking at brains with the eyes of a protistologist. (I also like axon initial segments) Forthcoming book: The Brain, in Theory. http://romainbrette.fr/
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
I wrote a book: "The brain, in theory".
First chapter and TOC:

romainbrette.fr/WordPress3/w...
romainbrette.fr
L'ERC est très hypocrite sur ce point: "significant publications in major international peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journals". Le facteur d'impact c'est mal, par contre il faut quand même publier dans Nature pour être "excellent".
Reposted by Romain Brette
gave a short lecture this morning on principles of computational modelling, always try to stress the point made by @romainbrette.bsky.social that adding details to a model does not automatically make it more realistic.

The wooden airplane model has more 'details' but only the paper model can fly
A general biological phenomenon, like Aplysia for learning.
Two b, or not two b, that is the question.
I guess a PhD is all about questioning what everyone takes for granted.
At this point, I wonder why one would want to justify their neuro research by the hope of making a breakthrough in AI. Like, that would be a good thing?
Banning for-profit journals won't solve everything, but it's a necessary first step. One thing in particular that publisher money is consistently used for is lobbying against the general interest, and this is one of the greatest obstacles to political change.
If I could change one thing about #ScientificPublishing I'd ask funding bodies to stipulate all work they fund be published in non-profit journals.

The knock-on effects would alleviate most of the strain on #AcademicSky.

This isn't hard. It's big, but actually, it's pretty easy.

1/n
The strain on scientific publishing
Abstract. Scientists are increasingly overwhelmed by the volume of articles being published. The total number of articles indexed in Scopus and Web of Science has grown exponentially in recent years; ...
direct.mit.edu
Ok you lost me now. I have no idea what you are talking about!
It's getting very confusing. What do you actually want to do?
You want to automate the enforcement of "rules of good science" and gave p<.05 as an example. Did I misunderstand?
Why would you take a bad rule as an example of what you want to do?
Seriously though. To be rigorous cannot be to apply rules that have not themselves be rigorously established. This is following orders, not scientific rigor. p<0.05 is not rigorous but p<0.01 is? Where is the evidence for this?
Self-consistence is not infinite regress.
Here's an idea. Basic criterion, coherence: any set of "rules of good science" should be established by a scientific process that passes the said rules.
That's the rule you want to enforce?
Thanks I didn’t this one!
Dreyfus' book is great. He points out that rules are for beginners, to guide them. Experts go beyond the rules.
If you worry about your rules killing creativity, they are probably not those kind of rules.
The one thing that history of science has shown is that there are no rules of good science. The one thing that philosophy of science has shown is that there cannot be rules of good science. But you just made a breakthrough?