First, it is not clear from Gold & Stoljar's definition
of biological neuroscience whether it includes computational and
representational concepts. If so, then their evaluation of Kandel's
theory is problematic. If not, then a more direct refutation of the
radical neuron doctrine is available. Second, objections to the
psychological sciences might derive not just from the conflation of the
radical and the trivial neuron doctrines. There might also be the
implicit belief that, for many mental phenomena, adequate theories must
invoke neurophysiological concepts and cannot be purely psychological.