Naming our concerns about neuroscience: a review of Bennett and Hacker's philosophical foundations of neuroscience.
Bennett and Hacker use conceptual analysis to appraise the theoretical language of modern cognitive neuroscientists, and conclude that neuroscientific theory is largely dualistic despite the fact that neuroscientists equate mind with the operations of the brain. The central error of cognitive neuroscientists is to commit the mereological fallacy, the tendency to ascribe to the brain psychological concepts that only make sense when ascribed to whole animals. The authors review how the mereological fallacy is committed in theories of memory, perception, thinking, imagery, belief, consciousness, and other psychological processes studied by neuroscientists, and the consequences that fallacious reasoning have for our understanding of how the brain participates in cognition and behavior. Several behavior-analytic concepts may themselves be nonsense based on thorough conceptual analyses in which the criteria for sense and nonsense are found in the ways the concepts are used in ordinary language. Nevertheless, the authors' nondualistic approach and their consistent focus on behavioral criteria for the application of psychological concepts make Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience an important contribution to cognitive neuroscience.
Schaal
David W
DW
Stanford University, USA. dschaal@accuray.com
D000818:Animals; D001519:Behavior / Q000502:physiology*; D001921:Brain / Q000502:physiology; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D003243:Consciousness / Q000502:physiology; D006801:Humans; D008959:Models, Neurological; D009488:Neurosciences; D010684:Philosophy; D012106:Research