Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:22:43.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why biological neuroscience cannot replace psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 1999

Nick Chater
Nick Chater
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL United [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , October 1999 , pp. 834
Copyright
© 1999 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)