I highly recommend that interested individuals read the rebuttal paper that Eberkman refers to in the post, below:  http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/LiebermanBerkmanWager(invitedreply).pdf

because it is plausible that Begley made the same error I did assuming that the "Voodoo" paper may itself have contained serious flaws, as the rebuttal suggests. Ongoing dialogue among peers is essential to present a non-biased view, especially in an area of science where different specialists can have poor understanding of closely related research.  Still, the arguments I presented in my earlier post are still valid; mainly that we are still in the speculative stages of understanding how the brain affects our assessment and decision-making processes. But you have to begin somewhere, and a controversial discussion like this helps to educate the general public about the general weaknesses inherent in all medical, psychological and scientific research.

As a neuroscience researcher working with brainscan technology to explore the effects of meditation, spirituality, and human belief systems on the brain, I am thrilled with Begley's courageous disclosure of social neuroscience research.  Not only is it very easy to find statistical "significance" which, more often than not, has little pragmatic value in a person's life, but the science of reading brain scans is, in itself, more art than science. For example: two radiologists can read the same scan and come up with radically different interpretrations; imaging is often so vague that any definitive statement of what is being observed cannot be made;  and most important, we still know virtually nothing about how a single area in the brain actually processes information, a situation complicated by the fact that neural systems are highly interconnected with each other and often function in unique ways in different people.  Neuroscience is in its infancy, as Dr. Andrew Newberg and I made clear in our last book, Born to Believe.  So Begley is right on when she says that the research is filled with speculative optimism, not fact. And don't forget that Begley has researched this field, and written about it, with more thoroughness than most of the scientists who actually do the research within their limited fields of expertise.  -- Mark Waldman, Associate Fellow, Center for Spirituality and the Mind, University of Pennsylvania.

The negative response among the scientific community noted by Dr. Ochsner is a result of major statistical and methodological flaws in the article, which are explained in this rebuttal:

http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/LiebermanBerkmanWager(invitedreply).pdf

I must admit that I am quite disappointed by this blog posting.  For three reasons.  1)  The blog takes at face value an article that has yet to appear in print and receive the full vetting it deserves from the field.  2) As a scientist who works in this field I was unaware there was a neuroscience blogosphere whose opinion in any way matters with respect to judging the validity of a scientific argument.  The statement that, "The neuroscience blogosphere is crackling with–so far—glee over the upcoming paper....." misrepresents the scientific response to this paper, which, from my vantage point, is resoundingly negative.  Forthcoming replies will make clear that the arguments the authors make are not only are largely fallacious, but single out social neuroscience with apparent malicious intent for "sins" that could be attributed to any and all whole-brain imaging studies.  3) This post was poorly vetted.  It did not consult actual scientists (as opposed to blogs) who do this work.  And it cited articles that have nothing to do with the individual differences issues in question (E.g. work on reward systems), thereby incorrectly implying they are under attack as well.

For those interested, you can find our response to this reply here:

http://edvul.com/voodoorebuttal.php

Cheers, Ed.

Please see http://www.bcn-nic.nl/replyVul.pdf for a reply by some of the authors that are criticized.