alt Hacker NewsI'm not a scientist, and I don't even have a very good statistical background, so correct me if I'm wrong; would it be far to say that the lack of skepticism about fMRI studies in the broader public is due to scientism? Because of naive reductionism and a gut understanding of what is "scientific", people are far more skeptical of a study that says, "we surveyed 100,000 people" vs. "we scanned the brains of 10 people." I've noticed a similar phenomenon with psych vs. evolutionary psych. People have an image in their head of what is scientific that has nothing to do with statistical significance and everything to do with vibes.
It is tempting to speculate on what might cause the credulousness of the broader public re: fMRI, but I think there is enough / too much going on here for me to really be able to say anything with much confidence. Scientism especially is hard to define.
I think I broadly agree with you though that credulousness to (statistically and methodologically weak) scientific / technological claims mostly comes down to vibes and desires / needs, and not statistical significance, logical rigor, evidence, or etc.
Where needs / desires are high, vibes will (often) win over rationality, and vice-versa. It is easier for people to be objective about science that doesn't really clearly matter in any obvious direction, or at all. fMRI is "the mind", and thus consciousness, and so unfortunately reduces rational evaluation in much the same way speculation about AI and "consciousness" and etc does. *Shrug*