Reply to comment

I was drawn to this entry because of the title. So imagine my surprise to see my name appear in it!

I fear I have to side with the watchdog here. If subjects have two different reactions to two tastes of wine (as measured by their verbal reports) then their brains MUST have had two different reactions as well. Only a dualist would find the mere EXISTENCE of two corresponding brain states to be of interest (and I think we can safely assume that journalists only report on findings they believe to be of interest). For a materialist there is no other possibility and thus this fact is dull as toast.

However, what COULD be interesting -- even to a materialist -- is the NATURE of those two brain states. The fact that THESE regions are active when I think I am drinking an expensive wine and THOSE regions are active when I think I am drinking a cheap wine can be a useful fact. It is the nature of the different brain states and not the fact of their existence that warrants (or fails to warrant) the journalist's attention.

Watchdog writes: "It's important to consider what the alternative was: that subjects reported liking the cheaper wines less, but their brains reported the same amount of pleasure. What would that mean? One possibility is that the participants were lying: they liked both wines the same, but said they liked the more expensive ones more in order to look cultured."

Actually, such a result could only mean one thing: The brain imagining technique simply isn't sensitive enough to detect differences that MUST BY DEFINITION exist. Indeed, even if subjects tell a lie in one case and not in the other, the diffeferent actions of lying and truth-telling require the existence of different brain states that a sufficiently sensitive device should be able to detect.

The NY Times, like most serious sources of science journalism, does occasionally ask us to be amazed about the mere fact that different brain states underlie different experiences, thoughts, feelings, or actions. In so doing, it is indeed guilty of pandering to the 17th century dualist philosophy that is still held by the general public. The fact that everything that happens in the mind is reflected in the brain is simply NOT news, and journalists should ask themselves whether the studies they are reporting tell us anything more than that. Sometimes the answer is yes, but often the answer is no.

BTW, psychologist Paul Bloom of Yale University has written extensively -- and much more eloquently than I have here -- about this topic.

Daniel Gilbert --- www.danielgilbert.com