On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Richard Loosemore <[email protected]> wrote: > > For anyone interested in recent discussions of neuroscience and the level of > scientific validity to the various brain-scann claims, the study by Vul et > al, discussed here: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126914.700-doubts-raised-over-brain-scan-findings.html > > and available here: > > http://www.pashler.com/Articles/Vul_etal_2008inpress.pdf > > ... is a welcome complement to the papers by Trevor Harley (and myself). > > > The title of the paper is "Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience", and > that use of the word "voodoo" pretty much sums up the attitude of a number > of critics of the field. > > We've attacked from a different direction, but we had a wide range of > targets to choose, believe me. > > The short version of the overall story is that neuroscience is out of > control as far as overinflated claims go. >
Richard, even if your concerns are somewhat valid, why is it interesting here? It's not like neuroscience is dominated by discussions of (mis)interpretation of results, they are collecting data, and with that they are steadily getting somewhere. -- Vladimir Nesov [email protected] http://causalityrelay.wordpress.com/ ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=126863270-d7b0b0 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
