Because PH.D.’s have so much knowledge of the brain, it’s reasonable to assume they’d be the ones to advance brain science. Doctors of neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, neuroimaging etc. have undergone years of training, experimentation, learning and discovery. Knowledge and skills are developed and refined as she conducts research, performs experiments, contributes to the literature etc. How could an “amateur” or independent researcher compete with this?
Yet there is an aspect of science where a relative amateur can contribute: a new conceptual framework or “paradigm.”
Mainstream science (experiments, study, analysis…) is conducted within a given paradigm. Because of this, mainstream science is not accessible to amateurs, while a new paradigm is. 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 pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it’s accessible to amateurs. In fact it is easier in some ways for a scientist operating outside the mainstream to arrive at a new (and valid) paradigm.
For example, consider the brain. How does it work? How does the system operate as a whole, through space and time? How does it create or enable the mind: conscious & unconscious) recognition, identification, thought, motivation, executive control, goals, intention, prediction, attention etc.? How do all of these mental states and processes connect to the brain? How are they 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 it’s manifest in the brain (the “easy problem of consciousness”) remains largely unsolved as well. 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 mostly unknown. Any prediction of what mental states and processes will activate, and the form they will take in the brain — what neural activity will occur where — are vague and only partially accurate.
Overall the mind/brain problem — how mind connects to brain in real time — is an unsettled paradigm.
To be sure, brain experts are necessary to support and optimize a new paradigm, and use it to it’s full extent to solve real-world problems (in BCI, medtech, robotics etc.). Their vast knowledge, skills and understanding are a vital part of the solution.
However the mind/brain system is a broad, multi-disciplinary topic. It includes not only neuroscience but cognitive science, psychology, sociology, phenomenology, neuroimaging and neurophilosophy. A complete model of it would encompass (or be able to) most of human experience — including people’s knowledge and capabilities. To cover all of this territory, 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 depending upon what is needed at a given state of theory or model development. 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/questions arise. They can easily acquire information in many different fields since they are not tied to one for any financial or career reason.
A second way being an amateur is an advantage is being able to research with an open mind. Independent researchers new to a field have 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 a topic with “fresh eyes.” There are less assumptions, beliefs, group think and ego 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 ideas conflicting with some of their own will be very difficult.
In short, a brain theory is not only accessible to an amateur, but 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 needed, 3) existing theoretical assumptions (such as a strict 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