[skh]

There are instances of where experts got it wrong. But to claim that neuroscientists know nothing is a bit arrogant. They certainly know more about the brain than you do (unless you too are a neuroscientist). I'm guessing you are not a neuroscientist. You hold a belief about decision making that is at odds with some experts and you have no expertise in the subject. A reasonable person would, at the very minimum, conclude that there is the possibility that their conclusion is wrong.

We can point to instances where experts got it wrong. We also can point to instances where they got it right. The people who study intensely an area are more likely to be right about that area than a non-expert. Physicians sometimes get diagnoses wrong. Yet a reasonable person pays attention to what they say.

[mikert5671]

I would consider myself an amateur neuroscientist, in the sense that I frequently read blogs on the newest publications and findings, have a decent background in pharmacology literature.

Aside from FMRI scans, which give us a very broad picture of the brain, there is no way to really tell "whats going on". We have not developed that yet.

What neuroscientists currently know, aside from FMRI scans, is that certain behaviors are associated with certain genes. They can say, people who had gene X and went through life situation Y, were Z percent more likely to have a bad outcome. This is where the human behavior is deterministic idea (and "evidence") comes from. One specific expert on human behavior is Robert Sapolsky from stanford, who no doubt understands human behavior deeply. Almost all of his conclusions are driven from the method I exclaimed above. Everything is a statistical conclusion on how the average person behaves, which is a huge error in modern science