PET: Exploring the myth and the method

Philsophy of Science 64 (4):95-106 (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)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,658
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Interlevel Experiments and Multilevel Mechanisms in the Neuroscience of Memory.Carl F. Craver - 2002 - Philosophy of Science Supplemental Volume 69 (3):S83-S97.
What Do Brain Data Really Show?Valerie Gray Hardcastle & C. Matthew Stewart - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 69 (3):572-582.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

90 ( #57,493 of 2,169,707 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #186,213 of 2,169,707 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums