10 Comments

1. 1. Steve 01:10 PM 1/30/09

   Great discussion and a great paper. It's been interesting and somewhat disturbing to see social neuroscience taken-up with so much gusto in questions of law and responsibility. Authors of these studies and commentaries often make sweeping conclusions suggesting that we dispense with traditional notions of justice because "brain scans show x". It's unfortunate that more scholars haven't had a healthy dose of skepticism when these claims were (and are) made. Perhaps this paper can bring some balance to the discussion.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. TruHuSKa98 in reply to Steve 05:17 PM 2/2/09

   I totally agree, I think to push science further to new and exciting paradigms, we need to question everything that is shown to us, and then some. Keep up the great work and keep asking questions!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. undrgrndgirl 01:32 PM 2/4/09

   yes...seems some of these claims are little more than the modern analogue of phrenology.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. rbogle 01:44 PM 2/5/09

   It really isn't media that is hyping this pseudoscience as much as it is the universities and their own pr machines. See for instance the 2008 news release from the University of Wisconsin, Madison: STUDY SHOWS COMPASSION MEDITATION CHANGES THE BRAIN hyping Richard Davidson's human experimentation.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. pamejudd 11:23 AM 2/20/09

   I just wanted to point out the very recent reply to Vue's paper, by Lieberman et al (2009, in press). Sorry but seems that "Voodoo correlations..." were just another example of mindless press hype over crap study.
   
   
   
   Regards :-)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. pamejudd 11:24 AM 2/20/09

   I just wanted to point out the very recent reply to Vue's paper, by Lieberman et al (2009, in press). Sorry but seems that "Voodoo correlations..." were just another example of mindless press hype over crap study.
   
   
   
   Regards :-)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. pamejudd 11:25 AM 2/20/09

   Sorry for posting twice. Hopefully you check the paper I mentioned, and be a bit more sceptical about what you read in press :)

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. John in LA 07:50 PM 2/26/09

   Edward Val is still a graduate student, not even in the field of neuroimaging, and certainly not qualified to make the claims that he tried to make in this paper. His "study" has been resoundingly struck down by the true experts in the relevant fields, who collectively have hundreds more years of experience. I wouldn't be surprised if his paper is retracted before it ever reaches print.
   
   My personal opinion is that he showed great immaturity and poor science in trying to come up with such overreaching sensational press-friendly claims.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. David from Colorado 01:11 AM 4/15/09

   The last few comments are disturbing, as they seem to attack a person, rather then a point. But, they are also misleading. Especially, the response of John in LA that Vul's "study has been resoundingly struck down by the true experts in the relevant fields". Serious readers should read to the actual Vul article in the journal PPS and the commentaries where everyone, except certain expert from LA, agrees with the essence of Vuls criticism. You can also go to any recent neuro-blog (Neurocritic, Neurosceptic) and form their own opinion.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. pamejudd 04:27 AM 4/15/09

    Sorry David, but have you already checked the paper I mentioned? I've already uploaded it on scribd (shouldn't be also difficult to find it via Google). This one seems to be a convincing rebuttal of Vul's et al. study. Where do you see ad personam?

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this