Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T01:05:08.026Z 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 Kingdom nick.chater@warwick.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

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.

Information

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