Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't deny that neuroscientists will discover something big in the future; I'm just saying that people should stop expecting that the next breakthrough will come from crude tools such as EEGs and fMRI, at least in conjunction with present-day computational power and statistical sophistication. These tools are useful enough without assigning an aura of metaphysical power to them; as things stand, billions of dollars…
> I'm just saying that people should stop expecting that the next breakthrough will come from crude tools such as EEGs and fMRI Scurvy killed over two million people until we figured out the solution was simply eating an orange. We won't know if EEGs and MRIs are core to future technology until we have that breakthrough.
The merits of a scientific methodology cannot possibly depend on the small chance that some hitherto unsuccessful approach might result in an unexpected breakthrough. Aside from the fact that anything might hold the key to the next big thing, such an approach would inevitably end up following whims and fashions more so than robust and sound scientific reasoning. All else being the same, priority should be given to research which is grounded in solid experiment design and a firm grasp on statistic.