Finally, journalists have picked up on what I have earlier complained about: the total misinterpretation of data about brain structure and functioning.
Cordelia Fine wrote a short article, exposing the main problems well, citing much of the data and highlighting where the interpretations go wrong.
Robin McKie, science editor at The Guardian, also wrote a short summary about why certain interpretations of data are debated by scientists.
I was also happy to see that Rae Langton and John Dupré wrote a very much to-the-point letter on the issue.
And Susan Moore contributed an ironic, mocking piece. Makes a good addition - and I think in this case the harsher voice is absolutely justified.
What was really sad to see were the reactions in the comments: most people see such criticism as being equal with science bashing. I suppose these are people who never did research and cannot see the difference between a debate about a scientific question (how to interpret data) and a political question (should we rely on science in decision making? etc.). The participants in this debate are all engaged in trying to help get the best interpretation of the data. They don't have any problems with studying the brain, etc. But of course just by looking at data from tests you cannot make any inferences and draw any sort of conclusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment