I find it a bit frustrating when people accuse scientists of being behind the game, because their own conception of the state of the science based on the state-of-the-art in 1960 mixed with popsci crap can't deal with a result.

Neuroscientists are being descriptive, not proscriptive, when they tell you what areas of the brain are for what. They aren't "deciding" what it means, they are telling you that across a wide range of people, when they see activity X, brain part Y lights up. That the brain might be significantly differently organized if bits of it are missing is hardly a groundbreaking idea, nor even remotely shocking to actual scientists. The brain reconfiguring itself, even in adults, has been repeatedly observed, with vision cortexes replaced by audio processing after becoming blind and so forth. This is interesting, but the "phrenologists" aren't going to be sent into a tizzy because of this one specific case. Your conception of the science might be sent into a tizzy, but that's not the scientist's problem. (Well, at least not directly.)