Philosophy Of Science 64 (4):S95 - S106 (1997)
|Abstract||New research tools such as PET can produce dramatic results. But they can also produce dramatic artifacts. Why is PET to be trusted? We examine both the rationale that justifies interpreting PET as measuring brain activity and the strategies for interpreting PET results functionally. We show that functional ascriptions with PET make important assumptions and depend critically on relating PET results to those secured through other research techniques|
|Keywords||Brain Method Myth Research Science|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Robert L. Scranton (1962). Myth in Myth. In Thomas J. J. Altizer (ed.), Truth, Myth, and Symbol. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Prentice-Hall.
Darrell P. Rowbottom & Sarah Jane Aiston (2006). The Myth of 'Scientific Method' in Contemporary Educational Research. Journal of Philosophy of Education 40 (2):137–156.
E. Landry (2012). Recollection and the Mathematician's Method in Plato's Meno. Philosophia Mathematica 20 (2):143-169.
Robert S. Stufflebeam & William P. Bechtel (1997). PET: Exploring the Myth and the Method. Philsophy of Science 64 (4):95-106.
Robert A. Segal (2011). What is “Mythic Reality”? Zygon 46 (3):588-592.
Susan L. Hurley (1996). Myth Upon Myth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96:253-260.
Daniel Bonevac (2002). Sellars Vs. The Given. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (1):1-30.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #65,329 of 722,779 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,982 of 722,779 )
How can I increase my downloads?