Comments on: Vul on fMRI abuse in the cognitive neuroscience of social interaction

By: joneilortiz

joneilortiz — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:39:49 +0000

Hi Justin,

That's one remarkable compilation you've put together, and I'll be sure to make good use of it in the classroom: it's just the kind of exhaustive, well-sourced framing of the issues raised by fMRI that I've been looking for – I think my future students will find it very useful (when I teach that new media class next year). Thanks for passing it along (and thanks for the mention). Regards,

Javier

By: Justin

Justin — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:06:52 +0000

Hi,

Happy New Year! Any chance of some constructive feedback on a video I put together on the above study

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMZvpVwfObE

Regards

Justin

By: ‘Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience’ « The Amazing World of Psychiatry: A Psychiatry Blog

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:09:49 +0000

[...] Mutually Occluded article [...]

By: Matthew Lieberman

Matthew Lieberman — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:02:46 +0000

Here is our invited reply

http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/LiebermanBerkmanWag...

By: Matthew Lieberman

Matthew Lieberman — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:02:46 +0000

Here is our invited reply

http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/LiebermanBerkmanWag...

By: medstud

medstud — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:18:05 +0000

Very interesting report. I find encouraging that someone took the time to analyze the validity of these studies.

By: Ed Vul

Ed Vul — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 13:33:58 +0000

For those interested, you can find our response to this reply here:
http://edvul.com/voodoorebuttal.php
Cheers, Ed.

By: Christian Keysers

Christian Keysers — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:51:51 +0000

Please see http://www.bcn-nic.nl/replyVul.pdf for a reply by some of the authors that are criticized.

By: benedict

benedict — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:06:05 +0000

Hi there,
I just stumbled on your blog… interesting stuff, right up my street, as it were. My background was in neuroscience - i was a research associate for a few years after graduation in a relatively well-reputed psych dept. at a UK university, and while I've fled that field I read this post with interest… partly, I found it interesting because when I was working on various things time/space/neuronal network activation related, the group I worked in was pretty much aware of many of these issues - indeed, we were using something similar to the fROI idea ourselves. At the same time, exposure to some of the hypercomplex stats stuff you need to apply to anything claiming to be neuroscience, I'd say these kinds of tautological wow-we-found-a-difference-after-processing-masses-of-data-looking-for-a-difference effects must be enormously common. (Although, having said that, even a cursory introduction to some statistics at that level makes most psychological research look even more error-prone than neuroscience.)

…have you come across Paul + Patricia Churchland? I think they make a pretty persuasive critique of n/s, despite (or maybe because of) being some of the most ardent advocates of its potential I've ever read…