University of Groningen Methodological Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience Kotchoubey, Boris; Tretter, Felix; Braun, Hans A; Buchheim, Thomas; Draguhn, Andreas; Fuchs, Thomas; Hasler, Felix; Hastedt, Heiner; Hinterberger, Thilo; Northoff, Georg Published in: Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience DOI: 10.3389/fnint.2016.00041 IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2016 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Kotchoubey, B., Tretter, F., Braun, H. A., Buchheim, T., Draguhn, A., Fuchs, T., Hasler, F., Hastedt, H., Hinterberger, T., Northoff, G., Rentschler, I., Schleim, S., Sellmaier, S., Tebartz Van Elst, L., & Tschacher, W. (2016). Methodological Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 10, [41]. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2016.00041 Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 24-09-2021 REVIEW published: 29 November 2016 doi: 10.3389/fnint.2016.00041 Methodological Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience Boris Kotchoubey 1*†, Felix Tretter 2,3*†, Hans A. Braun 4, Thomas Buchheim 5, Andreas Draguhn 6, Thomas Fuchs 7, Felix Hasler 8, Heiner Hastedt 9, Thilo Hinterberger 10, Georg Northoff 11, Ingo Rentschler 12, Stephan Schleim 13, Stephan Sellmaier 14, Ludger Tebartz Van Elst 15 and Wolfgang Tschacher 16 1 Institute of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Neurobiology, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany, 2 Bertalanffy Centre for the Study of Systems Science, Vienna, Austria, 3 Bavarian Academy for Addiction and Health Issues (BAS), Munich, Germany, 4 AG Neurodynamics, Institute of Physiology and Pathophysiology, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany, 5 Department of Philosophy I, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 6 Institute of Physiology and Pathophysiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 7 Department of General Psychiatry, Centre of Psychosocial Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany, 8 Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 9 Institute of Philosophy, University of Rostock, Rostock, Germany, 10 Department of Psychosomatic Medicine, University Clinic of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany, 11 Institute of Mental Health Research: Mind, Brain Imaging and Neuroethics, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 12 Institute of Medical Psychology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 13 Department of Theory and History of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands, 14 Research Centre Neurophilosophy and Ethics of Neuroscience, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, Munich, Germany, 15 Section of Neuropsychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany, 16 Experimental Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland Edited by: Neuroscience is a multidisciplinary effort to understand the structures and functions Patricia M. Di Lorenzo, of the brain and brain-mind relations. This effort results in an increasing amount of Binghamton University, USA data, generated by sophisticated technologies. However, these data enhance our Reviewed by: Elizabeth B. Torres, descriptive knowledge, rather than improve our understanding of brain functions. Rutgers University, USA This is caused by methodological gaps both within and between subdisciplines Brigitte Falkenburg, Technical University of Dortmund, constituting neuroscience, and the atomistic approach that limits the study of macro- Germany and mesoscopic issues. Whole-brain measurement technologies do not resolve these *Correspondence: issues, but rather aggravate them by the complexity problem. The present article is Boris Kotchoubey [email protected] devoted to methodological and epistemic problems that obstruct the development of Felix Tretter human neuroscience. We neither discuss ontological questions (e.g., the nature of the [email protected] mind) nor review data, except when it is necessary to demonstrate a methodological †These authors have contributed issue. As regards intradisciplinary methodological problems, we concentrate on those equally to this work. within neurobiology (e.g., the gap between electrical and chemical approaches to Received: 27 April 2016 neurophysiological processes) and psychology (missing theoretical concepts). As Accepted: 15 November 2016 regards interdisciplinary problems, we suggest that core disciplines of neuroscience can Published: 29 November 2016 be integrated using systemic concepts that also entail human-environment relations. We Citation: Kotchoubey B, Tretter F, Braun HA, emphasize the necessity of a meta-discussion that should entail a closer cooperation Buchheim T, Draguhn A, Fuchs T, with philosophy as a discipline of systematic reflection. The atomistic reduction should Hasler F, Hastedt H, Hinterberger T, be complemented by the explicit consideration of the embodiedness of the brain and the Northoff G, Rentschler I, Schleim S, Sellmaier S, Tebartz Van Elst L and embeddedness of humans. The discussion is aimed at the development of an explicit Tschacher W (2016) Methodological methodology of integrative human neuroscience, which will not only link different fields Problems on the Way to Integrative Human Neuroscience. and levels, but also help in understanding clinical phenomena. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 10:41. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2016.00041 Keywords: brain, methodology, mind, neuroscience, psychology, systems science Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience | www.frontiersin.org 1 November 2016 | Volume 10 | Article 41 Kotchoubey et al. Towards an Integrative Human Neuroscience INTRODUCTION: THE MOSAIC OF THE work?’’; ‘‘How is its work linked with our human experience?’’) NEUROSCIENCES from a specific viewpoint. It is not yet clear how that heterogeneous ‘‘multitude of perspectives’’ will contribute to Neuroscience has provided a huge amount of knowledge of the an integrated understanding of the brain and its functions structure and function of the brain. However, an increasing (Chalmers, 1996; Latour, 1999; Block, 2007). What are the number of publications makes it difficult to estimate the conceptual, methodological and epistemological requirements epistemic value of these results, their interpretations and their that neuroscience should fulfil to construct an integrated and practical relevance. For this reason, we want to discuss some consistent picture of mind and brain? methodological problems that arise in different branches of neuroscience that may hinder integration of these branches Can the Subdisciplines of Neuroscience into a unitary science. Methodology in this context does not Be Integrated? mean merely listing presently used techniques but a theory This general question can be specialized in several of the epistemic value of these techniques. This goal, i.e., an methodological questions: analysis of the methodology of neuroscience, is concretized below in Section ‘‘The Aims of the Article’’. To avoid – How close are the views of the different neuroscientific misunderstanding, we should first say what this article is disciplines to each other? Are these views only associatively not about. related to each other, do they complement or even overlap each It is not a comprehensive review of facts and findings of other? neuroscience. Such a review is hardly possible within a limited – Should we accept the methodological plurality, or can we volume of a journal article. Accordingly, we do not claim reduce ‘‘higher level’’ disciplines to ‘‘lower-level’’ disciplines? that our analysis is a balanced reflection of the actual trends Does the notion of ‘‘integration’’ (if, e.g., psychology would and advances of neuroscience; particularly, it is rather brain- be integrated into neuroscience) imply that the corresponding centered and may therefore underestimate the importance of discipline would lose its specific status and fully dissolve in the studies of the peripheral nervous system. Also, we do the new disciplinary complex? If yes, does it hold true for all not discuss ontological aspects of neuroscience. Such questions participating disciplines or only for some of them? Does the as ‘‘Are brain and mind identical?’’ or ‘‘Does human ‘‘self’’ richness of the relationships between neuroscience and other really exist?’’, however intriguing they are, have no place in sciences indicate that neuroscience is a universal or unifying this text. The article is not about what the brain and mind science? Do concepts and methods of neuroscience replace