I don't like the title of this post, just because they're really pointing out that the correlations are actually not statistically significant, they're in error. But, beyond that, it's a very good article with some very important information contained within. We are approaching a point where neuroscience is getting good enough that we will finally be able to abandon the non-objective "social" sciences for actual science, and have a much better chance of approaching the truth.
I fear that the main point of the paper discussed might end up being largely ignored, however. This would certainly not be the first time where it has been shown that a certain level of 'accepted' evidence is simply not objectively true, but a large portion of the community continues to rely on it simply because finding the truth is difficult. The real problem comes when this sloppy research is used to drive public policy. Law enforcement is chomping at the bit to use fMRIs as lie detectors, for example. They have consistently ignored the scientific invalidity of polygraph examinations, of voice modulation tests, and I expect no better from them with regards to fMRI use.
I fear that the main point of the paper discussed might end up being largely ignored, however. This would certainly not be the first time where it has been shown that a certain level of 'accepted' evidence is simply not objectively true, but a large portion of the community continues to rely on it simply because finding the truth is difficult. The real problem comes when this sloppy research is used to drive public policy. Law enforcement is chomping at the bit to use fMRIs as lie detectors, for example. They have consistently ignored the scientific invalidity of polygraph examinations, of voice modulation tests, and I expect no better from them with regards to fMRI use.