Bogen, Jim (2000) 'Two as Good as One Hundred'--Poorly Replicated Evidence is Some 19th Century Neuroscientific Research. [Preprint]

RTF (.rtf) Two_as_Good_as_a_Hundred_rtf.rtf Download (200kB)

Abstract

According to a received doctrine, espoused, by Karl Popper and Harry Collins, and taken for granted by many others, poorly replicated evidence should be epistemically defective and incapable of persuading scientists to accept the views it is used to argue for. But John Hughlings Jackson used poorly replicated clinical and post-mortem evidence to mount rationally compelling and influential arguments for a highly progressive theory of the organization of the brain and its functions. This paper sets out a number of Jackson's arguments from his evidence and argues that they constitute a counter example against the received doctrine.

---

Export/Citation:

EndNote | BibTeX | Dublin Core | ASCII/Text Citation (Chicago) | HTML Citation | OpenURL

Social Networking:

Share |

---

Item Type:	Preprint
Creators:	Creators Email ORCID Bogen, Jim
Keywords:	Keywords: Keywords: Hughlings Jackson, replication of evidence, 19th century neuroscience, Popper, HM Collins, epistemology of science.observation
Subjects:	General Issues > Confirmation/Induction General Issues > History of Science Case Studies Specific Sciences > Psychology General Issues > Theory/Observation
Depositing User:	jim bogen
Date Deposited:	26 Mar 2001
Last Modified:	07 Oct 2010 15:10
Item ID:	211
Subjects:	General Issues > Confirmation/Induction General Issues > History of Science Case Studies Specific Sciences > Psychology General Issues > Theory/Observation
Date:	2000
URI:	https://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/211

Available Versions of this Item

• Two as Good as a Hundred: Poorly Replicated Evidence in Some 19th Century Neuroscientific Research. (deposited 21 Oct 2004)

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item