Pavlov and Cajal Compared & Contrasted

¶ … agreed with the conclusions that were come to, whether people learned what and as they were expected to learn, whether there are problems in the study, whether the study could be done in a similar way, the real-world implications of the study and so forth. The article in question focuses on the methods and work of famous scientists Pavlov and Cajal. While some may disagree with the methods and motives of these two heroes of science, their accomplishments are not in question.

There are a few things in the article that are of concern, or at least a casual mention and then some analysis. One example would be Cajal's focus on guiding his disciples including the proper and adequate lines of research. This "guiding" can lead to an installation of bias and ingrained ideas that are not all that scientific. Indeed, there are some modern examples of "scientists" (quotes intended) that are obviously or probably coming up with their desired outcomes first and then doing research and/or they are manipulating data in improper way. Further, there seems to be an array of cliques that pressure others that go against the consensus as being "flat-earthers" and the like. However, Cajal does allay the concerns of the author of this report when it is mentioned that going against the wishes and directions of the school is perhaps the best course sometimes. Indeed, groupthink and using "science" (again, quotes intended) as a means to obtain power and such is less than ethical. Indeed, true science and attention to one's work is throwing one's self into one's work and letting the chips fall where they may when it comes to the outcomes. Of course, this does not mean that one cannot pose theories and make educated guesses ... far from it. Rather, science should be used to learn and expand our lives rather than as a means to regulate and control it and some politicians and corrupt scientists seem to have that ideal twisted ... assuming it is present at all. The words in the article about Golgi actively dismissing legitimate research is a less modern example of the above (Rozo & Rodriguez-Moreno, 2015).

If there is a conclusion that can be gleaned from the research, it would be the Cajal and Pavlov were in much the same field for at least some of their career (digestion et al.) and they came to much the same conclusions. However, they both swore by their methods but they were entirely different. Obviously, either of them asserting that only their way of learning and studying science being the "only" way would be wrong. Indeed, as long as one has the right principles in place, that is what matters. Indeed, modern scientists (as noted in the first section) often muddy the waters of science to fit in and/or support their worldview. This is a far worse transgression than things suggested by Cajal or Pavlov such as not devoting one's entire attention to a study of something. Indeed, one of the scientists in the story mentioned that having a school while doing scientific research would be a distraction. In the end, this is really not true (Rozo & Rodriguez-Moreno, 2015).