I have read tens of thousands of neuroscience papers. There is certain jargon used to make cautious statements that I find to be low-informational, too general to be meaningful, or unfalsifiable. They are used to soften claims to reduce the attack surface area for peer reviewers. Here is a list of frequently used neuroscience publication terms that have low ‘nutritional value’.
| Affective |
| Aggression |
| Association |
| Associative |
| Aversive |
| Cognition |
| Consciousness |
| Context |
| Correlates |
| Dynamic |
| Empathy |
| Emotional |
| Evidence |
| Flexible |
| Function |
| Goal |
| Inhibitory |
| Involved |
| Learning |
| Limbic |
| Memory |
| Mentalizing |
| Modulate |
| Multimodal |
| Regulate |
| Related |
| Reward |
| Salience |
| Self |
| Semantic |
| Spatial |
| State-dependent |
| Theory of Mind |
| Valence |
| Value |
Statements that use these words don’t illuminate. Am I missing any terms?