A New York Times article just out says:
Under attack by who?
Er... me. And the rest of the usual suspects:
A gaggle of energetic and amusing, mostly anonymous, neuroscience bloggers - including Neurocritic, Neuroskeptic, Neurobonkers and Mind Hacks - now regularly point out the lapses and folly contained in mainstream neuroscientific discourse.
I had promised not to do any more self-referential posts, but this one wasn't my fault. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
Anyway, I'm pretty happy with how Neuroskeptic's presented in the article, but not entirely.
The headline is sensationalist - I don't see myself as attacking neuroscience and I don't think any of the others do either. We are trying to defend neuroscience against errors and misrepresentations. My ideal is The Sceptical Chymist, where skepticism helped, rather than undermined, chemistry.
But the job of a headline is ...
