Philosophy of Science 64 (4):S95 - S106 (1997)

Authors
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)
DOI 10.1086/392590
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 65,740
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Myth in Myth.Robert L. Scranton - 1962 - In Thomas J. J. Altizer (ed.), Truth, Myth, and Symbol. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Prentice-Hall.
Myth Upon Myth.Susan L. Hurley - 1996 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96 (1):253-260.
What is “Mythic Reality”?Robert A. Segal - 2011 - Zygon 46 (3):588-592.
Recollection and the Mathematician's Method in Plato's Meno.E. Landry - 2012 - Philosophia Mathematica 20 (2):143-169.
Sellars Vs. The Given.Daniel Bonevac - 2002 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (1):1-30.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
378 ( #24,529 of 2,462,870 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #449,387 of 2,462,870 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes