Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:55:37.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neuron doctrine: Trivial versus radical versus do not dichotomize

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 1999

Barry Horwitz
Barry Horwitz
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Neurosciences, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892 horwitz@helix.nih.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Gold & Stoljar argue that there are two (often confused) neuron doctrines, one trivial and the other radical, with only the latter having the consequence that non-neuroscientific sciences of the mind will be discarded. They also attempt to show that there is no evidence supporting the radical doctrine. It is argued here that their dichotomy is artificial and misrepresents modern approaches to understanding the neuroscientific correlates of cognition and behavior.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , October 1999 , pp. 839 - 840
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.)