Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Goltz against cerebral localization: Methodology and experimental practices.
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences ( IF 0.9 ) Pub Date : 2020-05-21 , DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101304
J P Gamboa 1
Affiliation  

In the late 19th century, physiologists such as David Ferrier, Eduard Hitzig, and Hermann Munk argued that cerebral brain functions are localized in discrete structures. By the early 20th century, this became the dominant position. However, another prominent physiologist, Friedrich Goltz, rejected theories of cerebral localization and argued against these physiologists until his death in 1902. I argue in this paper that previous historical accounts have failed to comprehend why Goltz rejected cerebral localization. I show that Goltz adhered to a falsificationist methodology, and I reconstruct how he designed his experiments and weighted different kinds of evidence. I then draw on the exploratory experimentation literature from recent philosophy of science to trace one root of the debate to differences in how the German localizers designed their experiments and reasoned about evidence. While Goltz designed his experiments to test hypotheses about the functions of predetermined cerebral structures, the localizers explored new functions and structures in the process of constructing new theories. I argue that the localizers relied on untested background conjectures to justify their inferences about functional organization. These background conjectures collapsed a distinction between phenomena they produced direct evidence for (localized symptoms) and what they reached conclusions about (localized functions). When citing this paper, please use the full journal title Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences.



中文翻译:

反对大脑定位的Goltz:方法论和实验实践。

在19世纪末,诸如David Ferrier,Eduard Hitzig和Hermann Munk之类的生理学家认为,脑部大脑功能位于离散的结构中。到20世纪初,这已成为主导地位。但是,另一位著名的生理学家弗里德里希·戈尔茨(Friedrich Goltz)拒绝了大脑局部化的理论,并一直反对这些生理学家,直到他于1902年去世为止。我证明了Goltz坚持证伪主义的方法论,并且我重构了他如何设计他的实验并权衡各种证据。然后,我从最新的科学哲学中汲取探索性实验文献,以将辩论的根源追溯到德国本土人如何设计实验和推理证据方面的差异。戈尔茨(Goltz)设计他的实验来测试有关预定脑结构功能的假设时,本地人在构建新理论的过程中探索了新功能和结构。我认为,本地化者依赖未经测试的背景推测来证明其对职能组织的推论。这些背景猜想打破了它们为现象(局部症状)提供直接证据的现象与所得出的结论(局部功能)之间的区别。引用本文时,请使用完整的期刊标题 戈尔茨(Goltz)设计他的实验来测试有关预定脑结构功能的假设时,本地人在构建新理论的过程中探索了新功能和结构。我认为,本地化者依赖未经测试的背景推测来证明他们对职能组织的推断是正确的。这些背景猜想打破了它们为现象(局部症状)提供直接证据的现象与所得出的结论(局部功能)之间的区别。引用本文时,请使用完整的期刊标题 戈尔茨(Goltz)设计他的实验来测试有关预定脑结构功能的假设时,本地人在构建新理论的过程中探索了新功能和结构。我认为,本地化者依赖未经测试的背景推测来证明其对职能组织的推论。这些背景猜想打破了它们为现象(局部症状)提供直接证据的现象与所得出的结论(局部功能)之间的区别。引用本文时,请使用完整的期刊标题 我认为,本地化者依赖未经测试的背景推测来证明他们对职能组织的推断是正确的。这些背景猜想打破了它们为现象(局部症状)提供直接证据的现象与对现象(局部功能)得出结论之间的区别。引用本文时,请使用完整的期刊标题 我认为,本地化者依赖未经测试的背景推测来证明他们对职能组织的推断是正确的。这些背景猜想打破了它们为现象(局部症状)提供直接证据的现象与所得出的结论(局部功能)之间的区别。引用本文时,请使用完整的期刊标题生物与生物医学史和哲学研究

更新日期:2020-05-21
down
wechat
bug