Why We Should Communicate, Rather Than Interpret: A Reply

摘要

I read with interest the article by Levi Novey (Novey, 2008) in Volume 13, Number 1 of the Journal, in which he identifies several problems with interpretation and offers several potential solutions to address those problems. The "problems" and "solutions" cited are not new-and I believe that they proceed from faulty premises that would profit from a reply. After 30 years in the game, here are my thoughts.rnNovey cites "Problem #1" as the name "interpretation" that we apply to our craft. Despite the long, agonizing history of our struggles with the use of this term, in my opinion this is an empty argument. Novey states that "interpretation" fails "the mom test." I would argue that "neurophysiology" fails the mom test too. That doesn't mean that neurophysiology isn't a real discipline, with real practitioners who do real work— important work. To the public, we are "rangers" or "guides" or "naturalists" or "historians." They seem to have an inherent sense of who we are in those terms, and I see no need to disabuse them.