That was unexpectedly hilarious, wow.
replies(2):
Not a source I had previously associated with top-tier humor.
I particularly enjoy this one (PDF):
http://cda.psych.uiuc.edu/multivariate_fall_2013/salmon_fmri...
> What we can conclude is that random noise in the EPI timeseries may yield spurious results if multiple testing is not controlled for. In a functional image volume of 60,000-130,000 voxels the probability of a false discovery is almost certain.
[0] silly as in "there's no way this fMRI will show the frozen salmon as alive, right?"
Satire is "the truth, in the most extreme way", so I think it definitely qualifies to very, very seriously examine a dead salmon with an fMRI to see if it has brain activity.
It's not a parody - they actually did the study, and the results were as described, not an imitation journal article ala The Onion.
So for your example, what is the dead salmon study satirizing? Is there some other study that did something similar that they're making fun of? Is there a broader scientific movement that they're criticizing?
I concede that there may be a target that I'm not aware of. But I find it more likely that someone just said "what if we put a dead fish in an fMRI", and their colleagues found it funny enough to actually do. Many scientists have a sense of humor, and will absolutely do something just because they think it would be funny.
Yes. fMRI studies are used to "prove" this and that about cortex activation under certain kinds of tasks, and they're demonstrating that even a dead salmon shows significant activity under fMRI if you analyze it "in the standard way". Thus, it's absurd to draw conclusions in a psychological or psychiatric context without screening for false positives.
The arch-satirist Jonathan Swift is always my archetype. A modest proposal was about the famine in Ireland, but more than that, it was about a certain kind of English attitude that external technocracy could solve problems in the face of exploitation and callous disregard.