Misplaced Pages

User talk:Neuroscientist: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:16, 24 June 2005 editNeuroscientist (talk | contribs)429 edits →Useful pages← Previous edit Revision as of 15:37, 24 June 2005 edit undoDuckecho (talk | contribs)659 edits →[]Next edit →
Line 102: Line 102:
BTW, welcome aboard! It's always good to have a clear, strong voice join the choir, even if we sing different parts. :-] --] 13:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) BTW, welcome aboard! It's always good to have a clear, strong voice join the choir, even if we sing different parts. :-] --] 13:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks, ghost .~ ] 14:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) :Thanks, ghost .~ ] 14:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


I hope you have a thick skin (re NCdave's lecture to you on Talk). It's a shame that the need for one should arise. You've also been wattsed, too, I see. It's much like being slimed, if you remember '''Ghostbusters'''. ] (] 15:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:37, 24 June 2005

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages

Welcome to the Misplaced Pages community, Neuroscientist! And thank you so much for weighing in on the Deep Throat (Watergate) article...

Here are some of the perfunctory useful tips (mostly borrowed from ClockworkSoul), to speed your indoctrination into the Misplaced Pages experience:

And some odds and ends:

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun! Ombudsman 02:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Thanks, Ombudsman. Neuroscientist 04:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Useful pages



~ Neuroscientist 10:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

To dos

Wiki, sadly, sucks on neurology and medicine. ~ Neuroscientist 16:39, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 15:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


Terri Schiavo

Thanks for stopping by the talk page. We could sure use your expertise. But we have a couple (like Mr. Dave, as you call him) who aren't interested in being proved wrong, so it would be an exercise in tenacity, but it would be nice to have a tempering influence on some of the sentient ones in the group.

" can see that a lot of the medical/autopsy data is being subtly miswritten (by both sides, both unintentionally and intentionally) " Am I in the "unintentionally miswritten" group (it certainly wouldn't be intentionally, I assure you)?

Although I am not a doctor (or lawyer), my wife is an RN, BSN, CRNA who, although not a doctor, either, has well over 30 years of experience and whenever I have a question about whether what I'm writing is correct, I pass it by her for at least some measure of assurance. I also have some lawyer friends with whom I do the same on legal matters (and as was mentioned, we have at least one lawyer on staff). So I hope that my stuff is at least a little more accurate than some of the obviously misinformed posts.

Irrespective of that, I do wish you would stop by more frequently and throw some checks and balance into the equation. Duckecho 13:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi there Duck. Thank you for your questions. That judgement, that substantial bits of the medical/neuroscientific/autopsy facts and findings have been "subtly miswritten," was based mainly on reading the relevant sections in the main article. It would be difficult for me to determine from the impossibly lengthy Talk pages and Histories who precisely wrote what, and when, so I cannot (and do not wish to) point accusatory fingers (also, this would likely not be helpful). I have formed some opinions by reading the latest version of the talk page - contrary to your fears, in my opnion, your contributions are mostly very good, if the talk page is any indication.
By "unintentional miswriting" (yes, horribly clunky phrase, sorry, I was trying to get my point across quickly) I mean those assertions on technical matters that are written with less precision than they could be - where it is apparent that the reason for the imprecision is not prejudice but unfamiliarity with the subject.
For example, the latest brouhaha over Dr. Cheshire's statements and the extent to which the autopsy "repudiated" him stem at least in part from a poor understanding of the neuroscience of vision, and the neurology of eye movements. Now, there are some things in his affidavit that doctors/neurologists can point to that are not evidence-based (ie. lack support from the literature); I myself was critical of some of his conclusions when they came out. However, Cheshire is a very well trained neurologist and is no charlatan; it is in fact entirely possible for some of the phenomena he described to have occured (for example, Terri's eyes "looking" at objects), but people who don't understand the neural basis of vision and eye movement may think this could not have occured because of the loss of her occipital lobe. That would be untrue. It is likely that Cheshire's interpretation of the phenomena (and probably recording of the phenomena, eg. "maintained eye contact for half a minute") were wrong or mistaken, but I would not at all imply that something like eye movement or brief fixation could never have occured (which is what some people seem to be suggesting on the Talk page).
So, yeah, this sort of thing is very complex. It is best when dealing with topics like this to go straight to the primary sources and always stick to the facts (I'm speaking generally here, Duck, I don't mean you particularly) for example, "Dr. Chesire in his affidavit said that Schiavo could not track visually for long periods, or consistently, but he did observe that she did XYZ for ABC seconds." Later when the autopsy is being discussed, also stick to the facts: "Examination of the occipital cortex showed BCDEF; the Examiner concluded that this was inconsistent with sight." An explanation reconciling the findings can then be written, as long as it is factual and unbiased.
When I have the time I might write a brief primer on the talk page explaining the basics of the relevant neuro-ophthalmology. ~ Neuroscientist 14:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
I'd also add that I don't think it's necessary or commendable to include a lot of technical detail in a Wiki article. But I do think that the better that people who are writing on technical issues understand their subject, the clearer and more accurate the article becomes.~ Neuroscientist 15:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Your wikiquette is just fine, so far as I'm concerned. The response here is convenient for continuity if nothing else. I haven't played much in the Cheshire debate other than dealing with how best to couch the commentary. Yes, I take your point about trying to ascribe a value of seeing or looking to someone's eye movement or lack of it which may have organic origins entirely unrelated to vision (if I have paraphrased your point correctly). Actually, I may just weigh in with that perspective and move to strike altogether. The subject is so very heavily laden with emotion on both sides (I don't think there is a neutral side on this) it's easy to get sidetracked with one's own cant at every turn. Thanks for responding. Duckecho 15:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW, welcome aboard! It's always good to have a clear, strong voice join the choir, even if we sing different parts.  :-] --ghost 13:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, ghost .~ Neuroscientist 14:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


I hope you have a thick skin (re NCdave's lecture to you on Talk). It's a shame that the need for one should arise. You've also been wattsed, too, I see. It's much like being slimed, if you remember Ghostbusters. Duckecho (Talk) 15:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)