As for lesion studies, I wonder why there was no mention of single and double dissociation? Only single dissociation was discussed, and although it is tempting to say lesioned area X is uniquely responsible (a combination of necessary and sufficient) for behaviour Y, it only tells you something about its necessity, and nothing about its sufficiency. This is generally known in Psychology & Neuroscience, which is why almost all studies base themselves on double dissociation. It allows you to say sensible stuff about differences between behaviours at the same level of description (Space invaders vs Donkey Kong being different, for example), due to differences in a lower level of description.
Also, I feel like the importance of topology is somewhat disregarded in discussion of these lesion studies? As we go lower down in levels of description - systems, to clusters, to individual neurons or even molecules, topology of the units of description becomes more and more important. Imagine enumerating every transistor on the chip and switching their connectedness around to the point where behaviour Y can still be performed, but lesioning transistor X no longer makes behaviour Y impossible. So we don't actually obtain a "large number of identical radios", we obtain a large number of functionally identical, but topologically different, radios, and then shoot metal particles at them to understand under which conditions area X does produce behaviour Y. This, to me, seems a lot less futile and a lot more informing then what the section on lesion studies leads me to believe?