The inferential path between the fMRI instrument and anything meaningful is extraordinarily long, complex, and tenuous. Just at the front end it involves several stages of statistically torturing the distorted and noisy data to get some stable signal out of it.
-
Show this thread
-
I would guess few psychiatrists can follow details of fMRI data processing methods, so their faith in it has another basis. Confronted with the extreme nebulosity of human mental dysfunction, having SOME authoritative knowledge source must be reassuring?
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
This tweet thread prompted by the analogy with upset responses whenever I say “deep learning stuff is mostly nonsense.” Those seem to come mostly not from actual AI researchers, but AI fans. Personal and non-professional community identities depend on belief in AI progress.
3 replies 1 retweet 22 likesShow this thread -
“Quasiscience” may be a useful term for a field somewhere between science and pseudoscience. The foundations are dubious and the whole thing may be nonsense. There well may be some real stuff there, but it’s impossible to sort out which, given the methods used.
1 reply 7 retweets 24 likesShow this thread -
Quasisciences address problems everyone wants answers for, but for which no good methods are available. Practitioners collude to obscure the foundational problems. Funders want answers and choose to overlook doubts. Identity communities form around the field’s outputs.
5 replies 7 retweets 40 likesShow this thread -
If a quasiscience addresses its foundational problems, it can progress into a real science. Everyone wants to understand individual differences and how to relate better to each other, which makes personality & social psychology interesting, but much of it was nonsense…
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
The credibility revolution in personality & social psychology aims to fix the fundamental methodological problems and turn it into a real science. Some participants wonder whether, when the dust clears, anything will be left. But, so far, so good! A model for other fields.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Meaningness
The parallels with FMRI and social psych are not encouraging: low n, noisy data, high analysis flexibility after data in hand, heavy reliance on statistical significance as opposed to effect size.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @robamacl @Meaningness
I'm pretty sure some results would be reproducible, but even then it is not entirely clear what it means, beyond that some tasks involve some areas more heavily, and possibly we could generalize these results. Some localization is well established by earlier methods.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @robamacl
Yes, Broca’s vs Wernicke, etc. But even if the fMRI data were reliable, what could it mean? Which is Fodor’s question, and mine to my sister circa 1992.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh, hmm, Wikipedia suggests what I learned about Broca’s vs Wernicke’s 40 years ago has been disproven by fMRI. Hmph.
-
-
-
Replying to @robamacl
I guess? Using a sketchy newer method to refute what you thought you knew based on a sketchy older method is progress probably
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 4 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.