Identity communities often form based on outsider understandings of fields on the boundary of science and pseudoscience. When I asserted recently that fMRI stuff is largely nonsense, I got many outraged responses, apparently mostly from psychiatrists.https://twitter.com/EikoFried/status/1141015324474712071 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Would love to see an overview of the criticisms of fMRI based studies - have you written such an article or is there one you would recommend?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Meaningness
I see.
@Neuro_Skeptic might know of one, but my brief impression of his work is that he doesn't dismiss fMRI research outright (maybe I'm wrong?).1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @HanAlvari @Neuro_Skeptic
I don’t follow
@Neuro_Skeptic and don’t know their opinion. I think it’s likely that some fMRI stuff is true; maybe quite a lot of it. But currently we can’t be confident which. Certainly not as outsiders.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I have never taken a class in analytical chemistry or mechanical engineering, but as an outsider I can be confident those fields are mostly reliable and I could build on them. That is not true of neuroscience.
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.