That seems a little circular to me, after all the artificial system is built assuming certain rules.

I fully agree with this. I just think that new experiments revealing problems in tools, doesn't necessarily mean that those tools haven't been vetted properly. The experiment might just be the vetting.

Is this a problem of vetting tools or inherent in any reductionist approach? Neurons talk to each other, not "components." But in order to make sense of data, we generally need to simplify. And without a grounding theory, these simplifications will be wrong - maybe that's the ultimate vetting.

It sure could be. Maybe get ChatGTP to spit out a quick R01 proposal? I'm sure it can analyze the picture, derive a hypothesis and suggest some experiments on arm-organ function.

Hey, just because AI knows about those arm-organs and you don't isn't a reason to get mad 🤣

I always get scared when I see articles about people that use black and white photographs... Seeing her name takes me back to my PhD.

So 25% of the variance in an utterly useless metric can be explained by this "tool." And this "fact" is visualized by graphs that are totally meaningless for illustrating the claim. Yeah, well maybe worry about something closer to home before reviving phrenology in disguise

What a magnificent animal!