The use of analogy and metaphor as descriptive and explanatory devices in neuroscientific research was examined. In particular, four analogies/metaphors common to research having to do with the brain and its function were illustrated. It is argued that the use of these and other similar literary devices in neuroscientific research sometimes leads to certain conceptual confusions and, thus, fails to aid in clarifying the nature of those phenomena they are intended to explain. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).

In this article we respond to Justin Sytsma's critique of our 2005 article "Analogy and Metaphor Running Amok: An Examination of the Use of Explanatory Devices in Neuroscience" . We address each of Sytsma's major criticisms in turn. We conclude that, not only does Sytsma fail to convincingly demonstrate how our argument fails, he falls headlong into the very conceptual confusions we examine in our original article. 2012 APA, all rights reserved).