Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience

The problem is that the illuminated areas on the scan are activated by many other emotions, not just hate.

When it comes to brain scans, seeing may be believing, but it isn’t necessarily understanding.

Looking to the future, some neuroscientists envision a dramatic transformation of criminal law. David Eagleman, for one, welcomes a time when “we may someday find that many types of bad behavior have a basic biological explanation [and] eventually think about bad decision making in the same way we think about any physical process, such as diabetes

seem. They are not photographs of the brain in action in real time.

The prime impetus behind this enthusiasm is a form of brain imaging called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), an instrument that came of age a mere two decades ago, which measures brain activity and converts it into the now-iconic vibrant images one sees in the science pages of the daily newspaper.

To repeat: It’s all too easy for the nonexpert to lose sight of the fact that fMRI and other brain-imaging techniques do not literally read thoughts or feelings.

A fifth caveat stems from the fact that fMRI is an indirect method. Contrary to popular belief, imaging does not measure action of brain cells per se.

Brain scan images are not what they seem either—or at least not how the media often depict them.

A first cousin of naive realism, neurorealism denotes the misbegotten propensity to regard brain images as inherently more “real” or valid than other types of behavioral data.