A new qualitative review calls into question previous findings about the neuroscience

Study Tackles Neuroscience Claims to Have Disproved “Free Will” by Matt Shipman

“We found that interpretation of study results appears to have been driven by the metaphysical position the given author or authors subscribed to — not by a careful analysis of the results themselves,” Dubljevic says. “Basically, those who opposed free will interpreted the results to support their position, and vice versa.”

The researchers also found significant variability across studies. For example, a subset of studies that actually looked at where activity was taking place in the brain, and whether it was related to will (or intent to complete a task), often found conflicting results.

“Meanwhile, the journal articles that drew the most forceful conclusions often didn’t even assess the neural activity in question – which means their conclusions were based on speculation,” Dubljevic says. “It is crucial to critically examine whether the methods used actually support the claims being made.”

Study Tackles Neuroscience Claims to Have Disproved “Free Will” by Matt Shipman

That's a really useful study. I'm glad someone in academia actually decided to take a look at that. It certainly lends some veracity to the notion that scientists aren't always great/the best at interpreting their own results, and that they aren't nearly as free from bias as some seem to think.

I do wish the full study wasn't behind a (hefty) paywall.