Ali S, Lifshitz M and Raz A (2014) Empirical neuroenchantment: from reading minds to thinking critically. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:357.
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00357:
While most experts agree on the limitations of neuroimaging, the unversed public – and indeed many a scholar – often valorizes brain imaging without heeding its shortcomings. Here we test the boundaries of this phenomenon, which we term neuroenchantment. How much are individuals ready to believe when encountering improbable information through the guise of neuroscience? We introduced participants to a crudely-built mock brain scanner, explaining that the machine would measure neural activity, analyze the data, and then infer the content of complex thoughts. Using a classic magic trick, we crafted an illusion whereby the imaging technology seemed to decipher the internal thoughts of participants. We found that most students – even undergraduates with advanced standing in neuroscience and psychology, who have been taught the shortcomings of neuroimaging – deemed such unlikely technology highly plausible. Our findings highlight the influence neuro-hype wields over critical thinking.
Vahid, as I read the text, the authors state that many people inculding scientists tend to be too credulous about neuroimage findings. They built a mock ("mock" as in "sham" or "false") "mindreader" claiming that the machine would measure and process neural acitivity and in the end could identify complex thoughts. Even undergraduates in neuroscience tended to believe them, though this is absolutely impossible as of now. The authors warn that the results of neurimaging studies should always be read with a critical mind.
Please note that the article is not about analysing anatomical x-ray images.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Neuroscience