We are pleased that the concerns raised about cultural neuroscience (CN) have initiated a debate. This indicates that there are some issues worth being discussed in the field. Nevertheless we think that the response by Bao and Pöppel (2012) expresses some misinterpretations of the aims pursued by our critical review on CN studies (Martínez Mateo et al., 2012). We would like to use this opportunity to clarify these misinterpretations and the standpoint of our critique. Thereby we will focus on three issues:first we will reflect on the concept of science expressed by Bao and Pöppel’s reaction as well as on our own understanding of science. Second, we will elaborate our reasons for excluding methodological issues from our evaluation of CN studies. Finally, we will try to explain in a more detailed way what we mean by universalism and differentialism.
On the role of critique for science: a reply to Bao and Pöppel. Martínez Mateo M, Cabanis M, Cruz de Echeverría Loebell N, Krach S. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2013 May;37(4):723-5. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.11.006. Epub 2012 Nov 19. No abstract available.