Chater, N;
(1999)
Why biological neuroscience cannot replace psychology.
BEHAV BRAIN SCI
, 22
(5)
834 - 834.
10.1017/S0140525X9926219X.
![[thumbnail of download1.pdf]](https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png) Preview |
PDF
download1.pdf Available under License : See the attached licence file. Download (41kB) |
Abstract
Gold & Stoljar argue persuasively that there is presently not a good case for the "radical neuron doctrine." There are strong reasons to believe that this doctrine is false. An analogy between psychology and economics strongly throws the radical neuron doctrine into doubt.
| Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Title: | Why biological neuroscience cannot replace psychology |
| Open access status: | An open access version is available from UCL Discovery |
| DOI: | 10.1017/S0140525X9926219X |
| Publisher version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X9926219X |
| Language: | English |
| Additional information: | Copyright 1999 Cambridge University Press |
| UCL classification: | UCL UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Brain Sciences |
| URI: | https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/124471 |
Downloads since deposit
Loading...Download activity - last month
Loading...Download activity - last 12 months
Loading...Downloads by country - last 12 months
Loading...Archive Staff Only
 |
View Item |
