The point of the salmon paper is to demonstrate to people “if you do your stats wrong, you’re going to think noise is real” and not “fmri is bs”

Curious what you find to be "bs" about the results of this paper? That statistical corrections are necessary when analysing fMRI scans to prevent spurious "activations" that are only there by chance?

Oh man you stole my thunder. I hoped to be the first to bring up the dead salmon.