PH.D.’s have much more knowledge of the brain than most people. It’s reasonable to assume they’d be the ones to advance brain science. Doctors of neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience etc. have undergone years of rigorous training. Knowledge and skills are developed and refined over time as he or she conducts research, performs experiments, reviews and contributes to the literature etc. How could an amateur or independent researcher compete with this?
Yet there’s an area where a newcomer can make a significant contribution: a new conceptual framework, or paradigm.
On one hand if a brain science topic is understood conceptually, and falls within an established paradigm, then mainstream analysis is appropriate. For example, if the topic is “how does the neural activity of the reward system differ during task X as opposed to task Y?” then a cognitive neuroscientist is positioned to answer this question. If the topic is “how do neurons function” a neurobiologist can answer.
However if the topic is an entirely new paradigm then, as Thomas Kuhn explained in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it’s accessible to amateurs also.
For example, consider brain function as a whole. How does it function through space and time to enable the mind? By mind I mean (conscious & unconscious) recognition, identification, thought, motivation, executive control, goals, intention, prediction, attention and so on. How does all this connect to the brain? How are our mental states and processes represented, computed, mediated or processed by neural activity?
This is clearly an example of an unformed paradigm, one which if it exists at all is certainly in its infancy. There’s no agreement on what the mind is in the first place (Ascoli 2013). And how the mind is manifest in the brain (the “easy problem of consciousness”) remains largely unsolved also. With a common task, like “reach for my phone — to type an important text regarding a work project” what aspects of the mind, and the brain, will activate during this action? This is currently unknown. Any prediction of what mental states and processes will activate, and the form they will take in the brain, are vague and only partially accurate.
Overall the mind/brain problem — including how one might construct a mind/brain model — is an unsettled paradigm.
To be sure, brain experts can contribute to a new paradigm.Their vast knowledge, skills and understanding are a vital part of the solution. This is particularly true of the hard sciences like neuroscience and neuroimaging.
However the mind/brain system is a broad, multi-disciplinary topic. A brain theory includes not only neuroscience but cognitive science, psychology, sociology, phenomenology, neuroimaging and neurophilosophy. More generally, it would also include (all of) human experience, knowledge and capabilities. To cover this immense topic, breadth more than depth of knowledge is required.
This is where a relative amateur can step in — someone who can research a variety of fields. Ph.D.’s are usually specialists in (and often within) a single field. An amateur on the other hand can easily pick and choose information and ideas from a variety of fields, moving from one to the next as research needs and questions arise. They can easily acquire information in many different fields since they are not tied to one for any reason.
A second way being an amateur is an advantage is being able to research freely, with an open mind. Independent researchers, especially those just starting out, have developed relatively few underlying assumptions. They aren’t required to believe anything. Therefore they have less pre-conceived notions to set aside, in order to look at the topic with “fresh eyes.” There are less assumptions and beliefs to manage, that inhibit outside-the-box thinking.
A Ph.D. on the other hand has absorbed, consciously and unconsciously, a large number of theoretical assumptions. If these are not (temporarily) set aside, understanding an entirely new set of assumptions will be difficult if not impossible.
In short, a brain theory is not only accessible to an “amateur” but arguably more likely to be developed by one, because: 1) how the brain works is an unsettled paradigm, 2) breadth more than depth of knowledge is required, 3) existing theoretical assumptions (such as materialism, for example) are more of an impediment than an asset.
References
Ascoli, G.A. “The Mind-Brain Relationship as a Mathematical Problem”, International Scholarly Research Notices, vol. 2013, Article ID 261364, 13 pages, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/261364