Bias is psychological, not neuroscientific. The data may be on Kapor's side as they pertain to bias, but he is wrong to assert that "our brains deceive us". Many modern neuroscientists perform what are essentially psychological studies with their subjects hooked to en EEG or an fMRI, and many have shown that there are neural differences in group A and group B. They then make the often false assertion that (for example) the fact that a racist shows different neural activity than a non-racist means that some people are hard wired for racism. There are causal neural correlates to every psychological process. That doesn't mean that our brains are "doing the thinking for us".

I think we're arguing about two different things here. I fully believe that bias exists. It seems undeniable. I wasn't arguing that it doesn't, or that Arrington doesn't possess any biases. It just so happened that one sentence in this piece was a great example of something that annoys me in science, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to so with the IT world or racial bias in any capacity. It has to do with a broad conceptual misunderstanding among many people about the interpretation of neuroscientific data.

I meant to sling no mud at any scientist; I just meant many are wrong. (I don't despise any scientist. That was a poor choice of words.) That's what scientists do to one another. I used Kandel and Crick as examples to show how pervasive this type of language is. Both of those men are geniuses and well deserving Nobel laureates, and even they aren't immune.

"Invoking a philosopher", as you call it, is a way to point out that there are scholars who deal in this type of work who are often ignored. Hacker is perhaps the world's leading authority on Wittgenstein, whose writings about language and levels of understanding are very germane to neuroscience, but aren't required reading in most neuroscience graduate programs. We would all benefit if they were.

Scientific data are much more useful if there is a philosophical framework in which to interpret them. I wasn't trying to impress you; I was making a point that dualism is alive and well in today's world and is propagated by the belief that the brain is the new God.