Explaining the Brain
Mechanisms and the Mosaic Unity of Neuroscience
PAYBACK Punkte
58 °P sammeln!
What distinguishes good explanations in neuroscience from bad? Working from examples in the history of neuroscience (such as Hodgkin and Huxley's model of the action potential and LTP as a putative explanation for different kinds of memory) as well as from recent philosophical work on the nature of scientific explanation, Carl F. Craver constructs and defends standards for evaluating neuroscientific explanations that are grounded in a systematic view of what neuroscientific explanations are: descriptions of multilevel mechanisms.
Carl Craver investigates what we are doing when we use neuroscience to explain what's going on in the brain. When does an explanation succeed and when does it fail? Craver offers explicit standards for successful explanation of the workings of the brain, on the basis of a systematic view about what neuroscientific explanations are: they are descriptions of mechanisms.
