+1 for a cool and thought-provoking idea but -1 for more sloppy/faulty reasoning and arrogance than could be overlooked by a sincerely interested reader. I am

+1 for a cool and thought-provoking idea but -1 for more sloppy/faulty reasoning and arrogance than could be overlooked by a sincerely interested reader. I am sympathetic to the angle this is coming from. Yes, the field has a serious problem with shoddy statistics and post-hoc theories optimized for sexiness. But this paper vastly oversimplifies the problem domain to the point of trivializing it. The approach of this paper is to take techniques from a largely mysterious domain, apply them to a vastly different domain that we understand much better, and conclude that because we can't replicate our prior understanding of the known domain there must be a problem with the tools. My guess is that this approach looks less ridiculous on the surface because of how entrenched the brain-computer metaphor is--but don't forget it is just an anology: a knowingly incorrect abstraction. As the authors admit, lesioning a circuit board is totally different from lesioning a brain. So why on earth should we be talking about how much we can learn from brain lesions based on our understanding of microprocessor lesions? (not a rhetorical question--I am genuinely curious if I am missing something here because this absolutely confounds me)