{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03961352657004831, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00676328502415459, 'mean_word_length': 4.820224719101123, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Words and Pictures in Reports of fMRI Research

I want to briefly note three worries by philosophers about how results of fMRI research have sometimes been presented. 1. Mole and Klein (this volume) argue that some of these reports commit serious fallacies, for example, confusing (a) the data's being consistent with a hypothesis with (b) the data's confirming the hypothesis. This is indeed a fallacy, if the relevant sort of consistency is logical consistency. However, the expression " is consistent with " is often used by scientists to mean something much stronger, something like confirms or even strongly confirms. Compare Mole and Klein's worry with the following passage from Johnson-Laird (2001, p. 85):. .. intelligent individuals make mistakes in reasoning in everyday life. A lawyer in a civil action, for example, got an opposing expert witness to admit the following two facts concerning a toxic substance, tricholoroethylene (TCE): If TCE came down the river (from other factories), then TCE would be in the river bed.