Why biological neuroscience cannot replace psychology

Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-834 (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Gold & Stoljar argue persuasively that there is presently not a good case for the “radical neuron doctrine.” There are strong reasons to believe that this doctrine is false. An analogy between psychology and economics strongly throws the radical neuron doctrine into doubt.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,221

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

How trivial is the “trivial neuron doctrine”?Steven G. Daniel - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):834-835.
A more substantive neuron doctrine.Joe Y. F. Lau - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):843-844.
The churchlands' neuron doctrine: Both cognitive and reductionist.John Sutton - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):850-851.
Interpreting neuroscience and explaining the mind.Ian Gold & Daniel Stoljar - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):856-866.
The nontrivial doctrine of cognitive neuroscience.Valerie Gray Hardcastle - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):839-839.
Autonomous psychology and the moderate neuron doctrine.Tony Stone & Martin Davies - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):849-850.
A slightly radical neuron doctrine.Frank Jackson - 1999 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22 (5):840-841.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
62 (#233,420)

6 months
2 (#658,848)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references