This passage is the crux of the problem: > As for the Eklund, et al. paper, Rosen conceded, “It was an excellent point of statistics. It’s actually a point we

This passage is the crux of the problem: > As for the Eklund, et al. paper, Rosen conceded, “It was an excellent point of statistics. It’s actually a point we understood, but there are no doubt lots of people that didn’t understand.” But he thinks the paper’s implications were overblown. “The impact of that paper was actually pretty modest in terms of the number of results that were invalidated, that were important results. And whether we were significantly misleading people or sending doctors astray or anything like that, was negligible as best as I could tell. But the paper got a lot of press, and suddenly, now fMRI has a black eye.” “You see, it’s the others that don’t do it right, we do things correctly so _our_ results are accurate and relevant. It’s those other researchers who are not contributing to curing cancer/Alzheimer’s/etc” - this is the argument I have heard time and again from many colleagues when we point some fundamental issue with their whole field. Rest assured they also do the same mistakes but have often built large cognitive fortresses to shield their conscience from the reality that they are also a charlatan at least partially. The only endgame that you can truly live with given such realisations is to leave the field but many can’t afford to do that, so you have a perpetuation of such fields which shouldn’t exist at the scale that they do.