Dr. Swaab


For a while now, I have been contemplating my attitude towards the popular non-fiction bestseller Wij zijn ons brein (translated: we are our brain) by Dutch neurologist Dr. Dick Swaab.  Among other things, he has done extensive and sometimes controversial research on neurological gender differences and homosexuality, and is currently studying Alzheimer's disease. As I've understood it, this book describes the longitudinal developments in the brain, starting with conception and ending with death. Although until recently I hadn’t given it much active thought, in the peripheries of my mind I always retained a certain reluctance to actually pick up and read his book.

Perhaps the root of this disinterest lay in a majorly time consuming project on the neurological and philosophical aspects of human consciousness, which consumed a large part of my last semester as an undergraduate. Having had to read a lot of ‘brain’ literature for this course, I guess I simply didn’t see what all the fuss was about. It also slightly annoyed me (although probably unreasonably so), that his name kept popping up in all these articles; as if suddenly his was the only opinion journalists cared about printing. 

The other day however, in an edition of the Dutch newspaper Trouw which somebody had discarded on the train, I came across an article in which Dr. Swaab was being heavily criticized for venturing into fields of science other than his own, such as philosophy and criminology. This article at once brought out the contrary side of my nature (just call me Mary, Mary, quite contrary), and left me far more interested than any positive review could have.   

Why shouldn’t somebody, who is doubtlessly a leading expert and frequent publisher in his field, and who is clearly on top of his game, be allowed to extrapolate what his findings may implicate for ‘neighboring’ fields? One of the main arguments for a liberal arts education is exactly that – to cherish the possibility of using knowledge from different fields in order to come to a better understanding and perhaps reach new and innovative insights that a more narrow focus could inherently not achieve. I would strongly urge the above mentioned critic, to find faults in either the science or arguments of Dr. Swaab as opposed to merely appealing to scientific authority (a major argumentative fallacy, after all).

Perhaps it is simply the presumptious or prejudiced view of somebody (i.e. me) who has studied bits and pieces of psychology and cognitive neuroscience, that matters of the brain permeate into all other scientific thought (which is after all carried out by humans and their non-objective brains). In my opinion, it is both fascinating and crucial for modern philosophy to consider neuroscientific discoveries. At the same time it does not seem unreasonable that neuroscientists, who are perhaps delving deeper and understanding more than anyone into the workings of the human brain (and mind?), should themselves contribute to new theories in philosophy (or criminology or any other field). Of course this does not mean that their ideas cannot be refuted (this would again be a false appeal to authority), but should simply serve to deepen and validate the discourse.

I have to graciously admit, despite my initial ungrounded reluctance, I am now more than a little interested in hearing what Dr. Swaab has to say about me “being my brain”. As soon as I get my hands on a copy (I believe I saw one lying around a friend's house), I'll report back with a fully grounded conclusion!

Popular posts from this blog

Guilty pleasures

Marathon Christmas in the Philippines

Everyone Wants to Help