Reply to comment

I agree that Gilbert's contribution is a good one. Is it better than the original post? That's a judgment call.

But here's where I see things differently:

The reason I think the watchdog overreacted is because the columnist and headline writer were having a bit of fun with a well-reported scientific result in "My Cortex Made Me Buy It".

If the article were intended as a scientific story, I would hold it to different standards. But this is a columnist reflecting in a light-hearted "basic instincts" column of what that research means to her.

She has decided to trust her olfactory sensations and the pleasure of sharing Blue Nun in a box with her friend--and to heck with whether it may be considered cheap.

She finds it amusing that a high price tag influences people so that they not only report greater satisfaction but actually experience it. The brain studies show that they are neither lying to the experimenters nor rationalizing to themselves about their reported greater pleasure. The pleasure is physiologically real.

Even in its humor, the column seems to convey this key scientific finding quite well: People are not very good at separating the various influences that cause them to experience pleasure, even if their higher brain function tells them that one of those influences is (at least in part) artificial.

I'd say the watchdog ought to be employed to criticize articles intended to present the science. Ferocious Fido should allow people like the columnist to share their humorous reflections on the human condition without worrying about the snarling of canine scientists who criticize the column for not being what the author never intended it to be.

Fred Bortz -- Science and technology books for young readers (www.fredbortz.com) and Science book reviews (www.scienceshelf.com)