PET: Exploring the myth and the method

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

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

Other Versions

reprint Stufflebeam, Robert S.; Bechtel, William P. (1997) "PET: Exploring the myth and the method". Philsophy of Science 64(4):95-106

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,337

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Virtual Pet: Trends of Development.Daria Bylieva, Nadezhda Almazova, Victoria Lobatyuk & Anna Rubtsova - 2020 - Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 1114:545-554.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
413 (#69,456)

6 months
13 (#258,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

William Bechtel
University of California, San Diego

Citations of this work

The philosophy of neuroscience.John Bickle, Pete Mandik & Anthony Landreth - 2006 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The Philosophy of Neuroscience.Bickle John, Mandik Peter & Anthony Landreth - 2012 - In Ed Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
What we don't know about brains.Valerie Gray Hardcastle - 1999 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 30 (1):69-89.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references