David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In Peter McLaughlin, Peter Machamer & Rick Grush (eds.), Theory and Method in the Neurosciences. Pittsburgh University Press (2001)
Let me first state that I like Antti Revonsuo’s discussion of the various methodological and interpretational problems in neuroscience. It shows how careful and methodologically reflected scientists have to proceed in this fascinating field of research. I have nothing to add here. Furthermore, I am very sympathetic towards Revonsuo’s general proposal to call for a Philosophy of Neuroscience that stresses foundational issues, but also focuses on methodological and explanatory strategies. In a footnote of his paper, Revonsuo complains – as many others do today – about what is sometimes called “physics imperialism”. This is the view that physics dominates the philosophy of science. I am not sure if this is still the case nowadays, but it is certainly historically correct that almost all work in the field of methodology centered around cases from physics. Although this has been changing, there are still plenty of special sciences philosophers did not worry about much. Admittedly, I am myself a trained physicist and not a neuroscientist and will therefore probably be biased negatively. As it is, I will discuss some examples from physics in order to illustrate my points
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Stephan Hartmann (2001). Mechanisms, Coherence, and Theory Choice in the Cognitive Neurosciences. In Peter Machamer et al (ed.), Theory and Method in the Neurosciences.
Antti Revonsuo (2001). On the Nature of Explanation in the Neurosciences. In Peter K. Machamer, Peter McLaughlin & Rick Grush (eds.), Theory and Method in the Neurosciences. University of Pittsburgh Wpress. 45--69.
Antti Revonsuo (2001). Imaging Consciousness: Can Cognitive Neuroscience Discover Visual Awareness in the Brain? In Paavo Pylkkanen & Tere Vaden (eds.), Dimensions of Conscious Experience. John Benjamins. 37--101.
Paul Thagard (2007). Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. Philosophy of Science 74 (1):28-47.
M. A. Persinger & S. A. Koren (2007). A Theory of Neurophysics and Quantum Neuroscience: Implications for Brain Function and the Limits of Consciousness. International Journal of Neuroscience 117 (2):157-175.
Stephan Hartmann (1998). Idealization in Quantum Field Theory. In Niall Shanks (ed.), Idealization in Contemporary Physics. 99-122.
Stephan Hartmann (2001). Effective Field Theories, Reductionism and Scientific Explanation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 32 (2):267-304.
Stephan Hartmann (2001). Mechanisms, Coherence, and the Place of Psychology. In Theory and Method in the Neurosciences. Pittsburgh: University of Pitt Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #89,300 of 1,692,917 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #193,926 of 1,692,917 )
How can I increase my downloads?