PET: Exploring the myth and the method

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)
DOI 10.1086/392590
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 31,786
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.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
349 ( #9,993 of 2,231,526 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #445,507 of 2,231,526 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature