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

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,805

External links

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

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
380 (#27,792)

6 months
2 (#257,900)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references

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.