1. is certainly true. to my mind, an accurate quantitative measure of brain function doesn't exist: you run into the fairly intractable philosophical problem of "what is brain function?"
while that is true, not being 100% philosophically sound has never stopped psychology studies before - far from it
2. is also perfectly true, with the caveat that it only applies to beneficiaries of the patents.
so your hypotheses account for beneficiaries of the patents, and scientists who aren't willing to broach the subject of measuring brain function, but what about the complement of those subsets? what about non-beneficiaries who are willing to quantify brain function? are they simply a small enough subset that it justifies the observation? or is there another hypothesis to be found? or perhaps the observation is flawed in itself
while that is true, not being 100% philosophically sound has never stopped psychology studies before - far from it
2. is also perfectly true, with the caveat that it only applies to beneficiaries of the patents.
so your hypotheses account for beneficiaries of the patents, and scientists who aren't willing to broach the subject of measuring brain function, but what about the complement of those subsets? what about non-beneficiaries who are willing to quantify brain function? are they simply a small enough subset that it justifies the observation? or is there another hypothesis to be found? or perhaps the observation is flawed in itself