How Uses and Misuses of Hard Science in (Education) Policymaking, and Beyond, Can Shed Light on the Epistemological Crisis We Are Going Through

• 1. (past) / Neuro-indifference: neuro-skeptics and neuro-agnostics

• 1.1 Two forces of inertia opposed the birth of what was to become educational neuroscience.

• 1.2 Around 2000 an understandable, more or less healthy skepticism was widespread at education policy level. This “neuro-skepticism” in OECD countries came mostly from France, New Zealand and Sweden:

• 1.2.1 France feared an innovation threatening what it perceived as its leadership (cf. note 5).

• 1.2.2 New Zealand feared questionable uses and abuses of such an arcane discipline (cf. 5.2.6. & 6.3.3).

• 1.2.3 Sweden feared hard science could supplant social sciences as reference disciplines (cf. 6 ff. & 7 ff.).

• 1.3 In the education world, a relative indifference to neuroscience was perceptible:

• 1.3.1 Many people simply doubted that brain research could contribute to education.

• 1.3.2 Such an overt, careless and sometimes even condescending lack of curiosity came as a surprise among neuroscientists, and innovation-minded educators were outraged.

• 1.3.3 The first five education ministries to support the necessary (and huge) transdisciplinary maieutic effort back in 1999 were found in Finland, Japan, Spain, the UK and the USA.

• 1.4 Things changed when teachers identified the potential of the discipline:

• 1.4.1 Active resistance immediately developed in policy-making circles, as expected …

• 1.4.2 … and, even more, within education research, albeit for completely different reasons.