A paper published in Nature Reviews Neuroscience reports a meta-analysis of neuroscience research studies and, in keeping with old problems with experimental designs used by people who perhaps don't know what they're doing (e.g., failing to appreciate the role of statistical power), report that they find (a) low levels of statistical power (around .20), (b) exaggerated effect sizes, and (c) lack or reproducibility. But don't take my word for it, here is a link to research article: http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nrn3475.html
NOTE: you'll need to use you institution's library to access the article. There are popular media articles that focus on this article which may be useful in classes such as critical thinking and maybe even neuroscience; see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/sifting-the-evidence/2013/apr/10/unreliable-neuroscience-power-matters Jack Cohen pointed out some of the problems back in his 1962 review as well as updated them in subsequent publications; see: http://classes.deonandan.com/hss4303/2010/cohen%201992%20sample%20size.pdf Of course, this is problem of researcher education, the politics of funding research and publishing, and perhaps sociological factors, such trying to appear more "scientific" -- focusing on brain is after all more "scientific" than focusing on just behavior or the mind. -Mike Palij New York University [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=24913 or send a blank email to leave-24913-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
