tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post2448274012339313466..comments2024-03-14T23:52:09.893-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: "Science Fiction, Science Fantasy"The Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-48837489409611466322009-08-16T11:44:31.969-07:002009-08-16T11:44:31.969-07:00Thanks for your description of my presentation, an...Thanks for your description of my presentation, and for posting the photoshop artistry of my former grad student, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/3e/sets/664493/" rel="nofollow">Daniel Drucker</a>.<br /><br />I also wanted to ensure that the relationship between neuroimaging and "inferential distance" be properly attributed to Adina Roskies, who has thought deeply and written eloquently on the topic [Roskies, A.L. (2008) “Neuroimaging and inferential distance.” Neuroethics, 1: 19-30.]<br /><br />GKAGeoffrey Aguirrehttp://cfn.upenn.edu/aguirrenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-28059732005180841912009-08-10T19:13:27.470-07:002009-08-10T19:13:27.470-07:00Yigal - I agree with you and Anonymous. The issues...Yigal - I agree with you and Anonymous. The issues were nicely summarized by Kriegeskorte et al. (2009) - <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nn.2303" rel="nofollow">Circular analysis in systems neuroscience: the dangers of double dipping</a>. <i>Nat Neurosci</i>. 12:535-40. Here the authors mention that analysis of EEG/MEG and single unit recording data are subject to the same pitfalls as fMRI.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-46158964521222226842009-08-10T18:57:58.616-07:002009-08-10T18:57:58.616-07:00Anonymous is right, spurious results are not limit...Anonymous is right, spurious results are not limited to fMRI, but the problem is exacerbated by the sheer volume of data and the fact that people do whole-brain analyses with inadequate or no correction for multiple comparisons. The visual appeal of fMRI doesn't help either.Yigal Agamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05162735298576747474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-11429397486506081802009-08-10T18:25:26.593-07:002009-08-10T18:25:26.593-07:00Thanks for your comment, Nini. I appreciate that y...Thanks for your comment, Nini. I appreciate that you've been a silent reader, too.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-68205701080841487932009-08-10T17:20:35.600-07:002009-08-10T17:20:35.600-07:00You've got a point there. It would seem that i...You've got a point there. It would seem that impressive pictures and anecdotes carry more weight of conviction than logic or evidence. That, if nothing else, is why scientific education is important for anyone.<br /><br />By the way, I've been following this blog with a lay interest for a while (I'm a maths student). I always enjoy your posts, but rarely have anything to add.Ninihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01181275481870029357noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-82932058211036838342009-08-10T15:20:30.318-07:002009-08-10T15:20:30.318-07:00These are all good points. But one can make pretty...These are all good points. But one can make pretty and misleading pictures in many fields (ERPs, single unit recordings, psychophysics etc). In addition, fluffier fields that are harder to visualize (take social psychology) have the equivalent problem with "pretty stories" that are in large part illusory explanations. <br />Uncritical popular media, academic institutions that care more about how popular something is because it tends to translate into dollars, lower standards for awarding Ph.Ds; these are all factors that contribute to this problem. I see them at Boston College (where I've been for the last 20 years) all the time. It's not a problem limited to cognitive neuroscience, in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com