Premium
A Refined and Further Defined Argument on the Limits of Neuroscience in Counseling: Response to Field, Luke, and Beeson and Miller
Author(s) -
WILKINSON BRETT D.
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
the journal of humanistic counseling
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.593
H-Index - 15
eISSN - 2161-1939
pISSN - 2159-0311
DOI - 10.1002/johc.12101
Subject(s) - miller , humanism , consciousness , perspective (graphical) , neurofeedback , psychology , field (mathematics) , legitimacy , epistemology , argument (complex analysis) , humanistic psychology , cognitive neuroscience , explanatory power , cognition , philosophy , neuroscience , political science , politics , computer science , medicine , artificial intelligence , mathematics , law , ecology , theology , biology , electroencephalography , pure mathematics
Responding to multiple critiques of his article on the limits of neuroscience in counseling (Wilkinson, 2018), the author further explores and defines these limits, clarifying his perspective on the hard problem of consciousness, the support–inform distinction, and the quadripartite humanistic neuroscience model. Identifying naive mischaracterizations of humanistic principles and practices, the author also discusses the limits of neuroscientific support in relation to neurofeedback, neuroeducation, and explanatory power. Finally, the author calls into question the accuracy of the term neurocounseling and the notion that neuroscientific evidence lends greater legitimacy to the counseling profession.