PhilSci Archive

'Two as Good as One Hundred'--Poorly Replicated Evidence is Some 19th Century Neuroscientific Research

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

This is the latest version of this item.

[img] 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:
CreatorsEmailORCID
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/Psychiatry
General Issues > Theory/Observation
Depositing User: jim bogen
Date Deposited: 26 Mar 2001
Last Modified: 07 Oct 2010 15:10
Item ID: 211
URI: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/211

Available Versions of this Item

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Monthly Downloads for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item