Is neuro-skepticism in danger of going too far? Is it time to take a critical look at critiques of neuroscience? Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania says yes, in a Hastings Center Report just published: Brain Images, Babies, and Bathwater: Critiquing Critiques of Functional Neuroimaging Farah covers a broad spectrum of criticisms, ranging from 'fMRI doesn't measure brain activity directly, it only measures blood oxygen', to the Voodoo Problem, and the charge that 'brain images exert a seductive allure.' I don't have space to discuss these in detail, but I can recommend the paper as a clear and balanced discussion of these tricky issues. She concludes on a moderately positive note (emphasis mine):
Inferences based on functional brain imaging, whether for basic science or applications, require scrutiny. As we apply such scrutiny, it is important to distinguish between specific criticisms of particular applications or specific studies and wholesale criticisms ...
