We know in complex images deeper and more complex is vastly better, and does less overfitting!
1: you don't need decades of painstaking research to find the right features (neuroscience is pretty much the pinnacle of doing this out of all domains)
So all they can possibly test here is 2. Does deep learning find better features than decades and billions of dollars of neuroscience research...
The latter point is fine, they are arguing that "with current scale data..."
Sure, that may be the case, but showing that DL works as well as other approaches doesn't seem to support this.
I don't think this is a bad paper or the results are irrelevant. I just disagree with the conclusions, which is pretty standard collegial science.
I hope, anyway. Let me know if I'm "part of the problem".