@christakou

I am not a big fan of the use of "modularity" to mean "function localization". I think Fodor's usage is much closer to how modularity is used in engineering and design. Roughly, a system is modular if you can remove a module and replace it with an analogous (or improved) module without having to tinker with the rest of the system.

In programming, code is modular if you can independently develop functions.

@christakou

We are all subconsciously subtooting. 😛

Importance is in the eye of the beholder. I think there is sloppy use of terminology in neuroscience that influences experimental design, interpretation and popular discussion of the brain and/or mind.

For example, I used to field a lot of questions on Quora from people who wanted to remove their amygdalae. This is in part because of cartoonish depictions of structure-function relationships in the brain.

@DrYohanJohn @christakou

I think there is sloppy use of terminology in neuroscience that influences experimental design, interpretation and popular discussion of the brain and/or mind.

I so agree. A related discussion yesterday with a physicist-leaning brain researcher began with us both agreeing that brain researchers need to do better at stating their simplifying assumptions explicitly (spherical cows and all that).

And then he said something that shook me: You know that if you do that in brain research, many doubt your results. It's as if they assume that you are the only one making assumptions; they act as if others are not making them.

It shook me because I see that is in fact true: we've created a culture in which being clear about the assumptions behind your claims is penalized and there's tremendous confusion about what is real versus what is a working simplification. We have to change that, I think.