Be on guard for psychobabble and brain silliness: Are the numbers of science groupies increasing?

The number of neurosci groupies seems to be growing. A new study comes out and bing bang, zing zang, a link to some journalist's article about the research blasts around Twitter and wherever else URLs circle and echo these days. The groupies go into high action mode, alerting everyone about the new study.

As I have watched this field of brain science for a few years, I have become less and less likely to jump on the bandwagon of a new piece of research. Wisdom invites waiting. I may not be wise (perhaps a wee bit seasoned), but I do hope I am not in the wide-eyed, credulous groupie camp.

The number of those in awe of fMRI or other state-of-the-art technology is not small. Plus neurorealism abounds. And studies that come out of a lab at an institution of higher learning seem to be taken as gospel. Therefore, I was pleased to see an interview of Carol Tavris in which she talks of the need for caution when following developments in science.

Excerpt from "Champions of Psychology" (Association for Psychological Science's Observer):

The media do often get it wrong. [One neuroscientist estimates they get it right about a third of the time.] The reporter is usually writing on a deadline, and there is no time to check your quote; often the interviewer knows little or nothing about the topic. But “the media” are as varied as psychologists, and many interviewers are very competent. So know what you are getting into [or whom you are reading]. ...

...

Psychological scientists have long been fighting

“psychobabble,” psychological theories or claims that have no empirical evidence behind them. I think one challenge for the future of psychology, in this era of the biomedical revolution, is to be just as vigilant about “biobunk,” theories or claims that sound sciency because someone is waving an fMRI or other kind of brain technology. But you can do bad science with good equipment, and all the fancy equipment in the world cannot substitute for critical thinking and sound scientific methods. I hope that psychological scientists will fight the impulse toward biological reductionism and oversimplification.

APSSC: Is there a question that you wish I had asked? What would your answer have been?

C.T.: “What are the most important lessons that psychological science can teach students and the public?” and I’d answer: “Why it is so important to develop a skeptical sixth sense. Why, in assessing popular claims in these deregulated times, you want to follow the money: who’s funding, who’s profiting. And why it is imperative to keep questioning received wisdom and notions that ‘everyone’ takes for granted.”

Be careful out there. Bring your sixth sense.

Comments

[Christina]

fMRI scan results are offering great conclusions in this field. Looking forward in reading more about the same.

[StephanieWestAllen]

Some of the conclusions are good. Others are not. Thats why people need to be careful and discerning. And not believe everything they read.

Thanks for stopping by, Christina.