It's not even about being complicated, the flaw in the argument lies in "What is true is true. If we keep testing it and it keeps working, then the insights hold."
It's essentially the difference between science and engineering, and why so many people who are good scientists have trouble being good engineers. What is true today may not be true tomorrow when people are involved. Engineering is applied science. Applied by who? People.
The human brain is the universe for us, and it's not nearly as static as the universe that scientists work in. Brains learn, they adapt, they get bored and lazy, sometimes they make irrational decisions. They act differently depending on if/where the brain went to school, and what it had for lunch, and what the economy looks like, and how shiny an object is. That's what we're dealing with, and why there are so few "truths" in the field.
It's essentially the difference between science and engineering, and why so many people who are good scientists have trouble being good engineers. What is true today may not be true tomorrow when people are involved. Engineering is applied science. Applied by who? People.
The human brain is the universe for us, and it's not nearly as static as the universe that scientists work in. Brains learn, they adapt, they get bored and lazy, sometimes they make irrational decisions. They act differently depending on if/where the brain went to school, and what it had for lunch, and what the economy looks like, and how shiny an object is. That's what we're dealing with, and why there are so few "truths" in the field.