This essay is to critique "Brains in Dreamland," Bower, Science News, 2001.
Bower subtitles his article: "Scientists hope to raise the neural curtain on sleep's virtual theater." He begins his article with a succinct summary of partial theories set forth in Freud's. "The Interpretation of Dreams" (1900), following with acknowledgements made made later in life. I can agree with his summary, having read Freud's books numerous times myself.
The author then goes on, over several paragraphs, to mention, "One prominent group of scientists." The use of the word "prominent" might be construed as a testimonial. He does not identify the source. He states, "An opposing view." once again, not identifying the source. Then he states, "A third group of investigators," not identifying the investigators. In the following paragraphs, he identifies a source as "Robert Strickgold of Harvard Medical School in Boston." In the following paragrah, he states, "A broad concensus exists." I do not believe this is an example of any propaganda techniques.
The rest of the article clearly identifies statements, opinions, and theories of other scientists clearly and concisely, using the names of the scientists, their particular field of study, the Universities they are positioned at, and, in many cases, cites the publications, dates, and pages from which the sources are taken. While he does not cite them exactly the same way I have been taught to, I can't really find fault with that.
He intersperses others' theories and opinions with succinct and understandable definitions of the terms used, and uses correct descriptions of brain activity and function.
Yes, he uses words like, "says," "argues," and "notes." However, I cannot find fault with these words, as his sources are so clearly identified.
There are no case studies cited. In my opinion, as the subject is dreaming, which is, ".written in the mind with little of no conscious participation.