Scientific American published an interview with Dr. Matthew Lieberman in response to the paper "Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience." From the interview:
LEHRER: Your field of research has come under fire in a recent paper titled "Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience." What's the authors' argument and have they identified a significant problem in this field?
LIEBERMAN: In their paper, Vul and colleagues suggest that brain-personality correlations in many social neuroscience studies depend on invalid methods and thus are “implausibly high,” “likely…spurious” and “should not be believed.” These claims are incorrect. These analyses use standard procedures for drawing inferences and protecting against false positives. The correlation estimates will tend to be somewhat higher than the true value, but there is no evidence to suggest that these correlations are meaningless or “voodoo” science.
Click to read the rest of "In Defense of the Value of Social Neuroscience." Lieberman linked to his rebuttal of “Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience" here in a comment at Brains on Purpose.
Image credit: Scientific American.
Comments