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.