Models are common; good theories are scarce

Article metrics


I like to draw a distinction between models and theories, and, although the dividing line can be fuzzy, I still think the difference is a real one. Models describe a particular phenomenon or process, and theories deal with a larger range of issues and identify general organizing principles. For example, one might make a model of some aspect of synaptic transmission and use this model to connect observations (fluorescence intensity as a function of time in an imaging experiment, for example) to some mechanistic aspect of synaptic function (such as vesicle recycling). A theory of synaptic transmission, by contrast, would have to account for many properties of synapse function, and relate these properties to principles of information processing. Such a theory might unify models of various forms of short-term plasticity (facilitation, depletion, augmentation and so on) and describe how dynamic filtering characteristics resulting from this plasticity optimize some aspect of information transfer. Models have a long history in neurobiology, from cable theory through the Hodgkin-Huxley equations, and at least some models are recognized as having been essential for the development of our subject. Theories, on the other hand, are scarce, and I cannot think of one that has made a really significant contribution to neurobiology.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading