Below is Damasio's response to my paper, my rejoinder is in italics.
Me: An accurate source is an accurate source. Accurate definitions in psychology are not apriori less so if they do not quote the primary source. Actually, I quote you verbatim in much of the paper. As to the bias, Tomb's experiment was short enough to appear as a letter to the editor in the Journal Nature Neuroscience. His so-called bias was in one short sentence at the end of the paper in which he denied the efficacy of the somatic marker in decision making. I do not concur with that, as my paper clearly posits that the somatic marker is efficacious, but only in terms of the goodness of moment to moment decisions. I use Tomb's work because he noted an independent variable, namely schedule variance, that was not controlled for in the IGT experiment. Indeed, my entire article pivots on that one crucial variable.
Damasio: On the same vein, the 1994 edition of Descartes' Error, is from Putnam, not Avon (that is a 1995 paperback). The current edition is Penguin Books, .
Me: The Avon edition is in my personal library, and I read the wrong copyright date. It has since been corrected.
Damasio: I have great difficulty reading through a paper when I encounter misrepresentations and tendentious framing of the issues. This is not, incidentally, a comment on the intellectual substance of your text. (the message ended here, as I am sure he felt I was properly swatted.)
Me: I sent you my article because I wanted you to find any misrepresentations before its prospective publication, something I am sure not many authors who criticize your work are wont to do. The problems you have found are on the whole trivial, particularly when many of my arguments and conclusions are highly provocative and new. But being provocative does not mean being biased and partisan, as your use of the word tendentious imputes. Indeed, many researchers on the somatic marker, such as Maia, Tomb, and most recently Dunn, are hardly prejudiced observers, and I doubt they would be published in respected journals if they made unwarranted and biased claims. Indeed, it is a greater mark of bias to ignore the concept of the somatic marker or to mindlessly accept it.
As a Popperian, I believe a theory to be worth its salt must be falsifiable, and if feelings are hurt in the attempt, too bad. That's not prejudice, that's science. That is what I attempt to do in a clear and distinct manner (I am a Spinozist by the way), with as little mis-representation of the data as possible. If bias is indeed there, then you refute it, and do not ignore it. That is the true mark of a true scientist.