I posted about the debates and occasionally update that post with other links at New paper "Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience" may "shake up the world of social cognitive neuroscience". Yesterday Sharon Begley wrote about the topic for the second time this week. I am calling your attention to her post because I found the comments by Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, lead author of one of the papers critical of neuroscience research, to to be of interest. From Brain Scan Update: 'Our Aim Was to Educate, Not Accuse':
I ... reported criticism that Kriegeskorte and his colleagues had not listed the studies they found to be problematic, which leaves scientists scratching their heads about what’s reliable and what's (maybe) not. The reason they did not make the list public, Kriegeskorte explains, is that their aim was “to educate, so that an alarming trend can be nipped in the bud before many incorrect claims accumulate in the literature” and not to accuse. “So we decided not to list papers. Every case is different and we could not have done justice to particular studies had we been more specific. We didn’t even want to give a percentage [of how many studies resort to the ‘double dipping’ they criticize], but one of the four reviewers and the editors were adamant about this. . . . We feel that starting a political fight with hundreds of authors is not helpful to our field—especially when most of the studies affected are likely to be correct in their overall conclusion. . . . A few bad apples can and should be listed. But literally thousands of overall good apples, each with a little brown spot, can and should not."
I found this blog really good, this is a best way to share information to increase knowledge and learning capabilities. good work
Posted by: Research Paper Writing | June 05, 2009 at 12:33 AM