At the lower level of technicians perhaps, but I doubt it since thinking involves both hemispheres. Advances in science require imagination, which certainly does.

The whole left versus right brain thing is a massive over simplification. Throw it in the bin. Just some typical sensationalist ‘science’ reporting.

You beat me to it. It's pop psych.

agreed - yes it’s a fallacy. Nothing is limited to one side or the other.

:up:

The hemispheres are dichotomised – or lateralised – but in a way that is designed to go synergistically together.

Right hemisphere emphasises global contextuality while left emphasises local focus.

If you want to concentrate, that shifts the weight left. Attention is narrowed to follow a plan. If you need to search widely because you don't know where the significant event may come from, that shifts you to the right so that you are attending in an open-minded vigilant fashion.

In most tasks, both kinds of processing style work in sink. In language, left side follows the narrow thread of meaning, right side takes in the general manner and context surrounding the way things are being said.

This is why intelligence and creativity get assigned to opposite hemispheres. All intelligence involves creativity. But you can see how there is a contrast in attentional style between focus and fringe. In one mode you want to follow a narrow path and so the right brain would help by suppressing fringe associations. In the other you don't have a known direction, so you need the right brain to take the brakes off the bubble of fringe associations.

It is just logical for neurobiology to split the load – divide the world into figure and ground. It needs to create the high contrast that allows it then to put back together the high information picture.

The result is we can shift styles at will. Even moving the eyes to one side or the other helps switch us from focused recall to creative search.

The effects are subtle because the two sides are designed for integrated action. But we all know what it is like to switch from trying to concentrate despite distractions vs trying to still our minds so as to catch the most elusive threads of thought or faint sensory events.

We can have this spectrum of attentional settings because we do have a division of labour – a contrast in processing styles in a brain with also the massive connections to then integrate what has been separated.

The answer to the OP's query would depend on what kinda a cognitive abilites are required for science and where they're localized in the brain.

Fun fact: Left-handed (right-brain-dominant) folks are going extinct ... slowly ... painfully? Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, all righties (left-brain-dominant peeps).

That is pretty incredible. I have heard of brain cancers that called for removing half the brain. I have also heard of studies of blindfolded seeing people who were taught sign language and under brain scans their occipital seemed to respecialize or at least temporarily assist at tactile functions since it wasn't being used for sight. I'm not referring to brain plasticity though. I mean adult brains that can't accommodate s***. Lol.

Actually I think the eye position and brain access thing might be a myth if you're referring to detecting lies versus remembering the truth?

Let's set aside the issue of can one side of the brain function alone. So, can a scientist use only those traits that have been attributed (correctly or not) to the right brain. I don't think so. They could certainly come up with hypotheses. They might get all sorts of insights, even into procedures. They might catch on the blind spots in models and theories and notice anomalies and/or give them the credit they are due. They could be a valuable part of a team. They might notice patterns that other scientists on the team did not notice. IOW they could work as part of a team and be a cherished and useful member. But if they had to handle all the parts of a process from hypothesis to organizing the research, to researching prior related research, to getting finances, to carrying out protocols in the proper way, to analyzing data, to....and so on...they would have problems. And probably a lack of interest also.

They say statistically is far better to have an aneurysm in your left hemisphere than your right because of the right hemisphere's powers of global contextuality. The damaged brain is better at re-adapting/re-wiring with help from a healthy right hemisphere than the reversed.

One wonders how culture might preference/modify/evolve laterialized brain activity. This is all taken up by Iain McGilchrist's work but it is probably all highly speculative. You are permitted to dismiss it as bullshit if you like (you do you).

Recently I have taken an interest in testing remote viewing. Some say it's totally legitimate. Others say it has never been proven scientifically. I joined a group that discusses it online and one person says it is a very right brained process. So in that sense a viewer's description would be very abstract. Numbers, letters, and more objective data shouldn't be used as a target, as it's unlikely they will be able to process that type of information. It would be much easier for me to determine if this is a real phenomenon if I could test something that requires minimal interpretation.

:up:

As far as aneurysms and strokes I hope gene therapy makes regeneration of the brain a possibility. So far optic nerve has shown potential for regeneration with gene therapy.

This is why intelligence and creativity get assigned to opposite hemispheres. — apokrisis

Gibberish.

No one is ‘right’ or ‘left’ brain dominant. This is a nonsense myth that persists through uninformed pop-‘science’.

No one is ‘right’ or ‘left’ brain dominant. This is a nonsense myth that persists through uninformed pop-‘science’. — I like sushi

I haven't updated my neuorology files since 2004! Can't afford it any more. So I'll take your word for it although some references would be a big help.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6837438/

According to this the side of stroke or aneurysm doesn't change prognosis that much.

So would most in here say right brain associated abilities alone would not do much towards science processes?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6837438/

According to this the side of stroke or aneurysm doesn't change prognosis that much. — TiredThinker

I'm just regurgitating what I've think I've heard from McGilchrist. Also I'm not sure that this study is comprehensive enough to establish the behavioral/psychological differences/problems between folks with substantial brain damage between hemispheres. It doesn't seem like behavior is a factor at all in this study and how it it is possibly linked to 'favorable outcomes'. I don't know the significance of what they are really measuring in this link.

Recently I have taken an interest in testing remote viewing. — TiredThinker

Any luck there?

Do you read the replies? It is not an either/or choice. Both hemispheres act together even if the corpus callosum is severed or if the person lost one hemisphere in early life due to the other hemisphere taking on the role due to the plasticity of the brain.

You might be interested to know about the research done by … some guy with Italian name … haha! Sorry, gone blank. Anyway, he studied split brain patients and concluded that the two hemispheres still communicated only they did this by ‘observing’ what the person was doing - eg. By tying one hand behind the back of the patient then asking them to solve certain puzzles … often the hand tied behind knew the answer (but the person was not consciously aware of this) and tried to point out the mistakes made by the other hand.

It is very interesting how we claim authorship over our actions quickly when the outcome is positive ;)

None yet. Those in the group I joined seem to like putting up so many conditions for testing the ability. They say the viewer and "tasker" should know each other, the target should be descriptive and not as objective like numbers or letters so basically very difficult to measure success rate, and they seem concerned with people they might categorize as skeptical or otherwise trying to prove to themselves that this ability exists. I am frankly worried they want people to have blind faith even though they freely admit that results aren't consistent enough to be used for anything too critical. I believe the CIA considered these means to not be "actionable." But I guess some say the success rate in general beats chance which is all I'd like to determine.

Sounds interesting. If you find the study I'd love to read it.

It’s very famous. A quick search … Gazzaniga.