TY - JOUR T1 - Calling Names JF - eneuro JO - eNeuro DO - 10.1523/ENEURO.0314-20.2020 VL - 7 IS - 4 SP - ENEURO.0314-20.2020 AU - Christophe Bernard Y1 - 2020/07/01 UR - http://www.eneuro.org/content/7/4/ENEURO.0314-20.2020.abstract N2 - I am delighted to see two excellent commentaries published in eNeuro. György Buzsáki contacted me because, 20 years ago, he had tried to publish a commentary regarding the way behavioral-cognitive neuroscience is conducted; it was rejected. Twenty years later, György sent the same commentary verbatim to the same journal, because he considered the ideas still topical. After review, György decided not to perform the requested revisions because he thought that the original text “was the product of the time.” He submitted it to eNeuro, and we decided to publish it as is (Buzsáki, 2020) because I thought that his arguments are very interesting and important to discuss. György argues that behavioral-cognitive neuroscience should invent its own vocabulary and be based on a mechanistic approach. I shall not express an opinion, just that I consider this idea worthy of debate. His arguments are as important to discuss now as they were 20 years ago.However, since it can be seen as a strong attack on the way behavioral-cognitive neuroscience is done, I have asked David Poeppel (Poeppel and Adolfi, 2020), a leader in cognitive neuroscience, to react to György’s ideas. Both commentaries contain fantastic material and should be read in sequence, starting with György’s. As you will see, György and David don’t call each other names (they are friends). I hope you will agree that this is a very interesting debate and worth developing further (you can contact me if you have some suggestions).A core issue that emerges from both texts is that of “naming.” Both texts acknowledge the importance of the “names” we give to describe observables in science. I would like to add my two cents to the debate and go a bit further regarding the issue of naming. Already as … ER -