we're still deep in the middle of a Replication Crisis in social science research and I think framing this kind of story as being that one side of the pedagogy argument is totally ignoring science and the other side is on the side of science feels almost inherently dishonest.

Yeah, that makes sense, though I know nothing about neurological research at all. The podcast does certainly have an agenda--one that it's very straightforward about. Most things in life rest in the nuance, don't they?

Human brains are complicated, any experiment involving them is subject to all sorts of confounding factors and is extremely sensitive to the questions being asked and types of experimental conditions that are easy to overlook even being part of the experimental setup.

Thank you for this reminder!