> This is a classic example of poor scientific journalism and I believe it became so popular due to widespread deficits in scientific literacy. You don’t have to be a neuroscientist to see that there are huge problems with his story. You simply have view this story objectively have a healthy dose of skepticism without quickly deferring to the authority figure. There are simple questions which are never addressed here. What experiment was being done during each PET scan? If the psychopaths and Dr. Fallon were both completing a morality task and they both had low activity in certain regions, THEN that would be something more tangible. This is simply showing a brain picture and not asking questions. We know that people are much more likely to believe something if there is a brain picture associated with it and this is further proof.-- http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pseud...
coldtea|12 years ago
The first half is 5 variations of "he doesn't give us the full medical data for his diagnosis" [in a magazine article or a tv interview, no less].
The second part is some lame assumptioms on what Dr. Fallon did.
And the conclusion builds up on the first part: "I am arguing that the news articles covering his story do not provide enough details to support his claims.".
No shit Sherlock. It's a news article, not a paper.