'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.
This is the latest version of this eprint.
Full text available as: |
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.
| 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 |
| ID Code: | 211 |
| Deposited By: | bogen, jim |
| Deposited On: | 26 March 2001 |
Available Versions of this Item
- 'Two as Good as One Hundred'--Poorly Replicated Evidence is Some 19th Century Neuroscientific Research (deposited 26 March 2001) [Currently Displayed]